ELECTION and CON VERSION 



A frank discussion of Dr. F. Piepers Book on 
"Conversion and Election" with some sugges- 
tions for Lutheran Unity on Another Basis* 



LEANDER S. KEYSER. D. D. 




Book JA4- 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



Election and Conversion 



A Frank Discussion of 

Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," 

with Suggestions for 

Lutheran Concord and Union 

on Another Basis 



By 

LEANDER S. KEYSER, D. D. 

\\ 

Professor of Systematic Theology in Hamma Divinity School, 
Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio 

Author of "A System of Christian Ethics,'" 

il A System of Christian Evidence,'' 1 

' ' The Rational Test, ' ' etc. 



BURLINGTON, IOWA 
THE GERMAN LITERARY BOARD 

1914 



-$i 



% 



0(0^ . 



,tf* 



Copyright 1914 

By R. NEUMANN 

BURLINGTON, IOWA 



APR 10 1314 



5CI.A371315 



CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

I. Missouri's Precise Position 5 

II.. A Note on Lutheran Union 14 

III. The Regulative Doctrine 22 

IV. Locating the Mystery 31 

V. The Heart of the Question 41 

VI. Regeneration Working Faith 61 

VII. Salient Scripture Teaching 73 

VIII. Preparatory Acts of Grace 86 

IX. Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages Ill 

X. Does the Bible Teach Separatism ? 142 

XL The Question of Lutheran Unity 158 

Index 179 



ELECTION AND CONVERSION 



I 

MISSOURI'S PRECISE POSITION 

A NOTABLE booklet, by Professor Pieper, D. D., 
of Concordia Lutheran Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., 
was issued in 1913. It bears the title, "Conversion and 
Election," and the significant sub-title, "A Plea for a 
United Lutheranism in America." The book has attracted 
much attention in all branches of the Lutheran Church, 
and is being widely circulated both by sale and gift copies. 
It is written in a clear and fluent style, and an excellent 
spirit prevades it all ; indeed, it could not display a more 
irenic and complaisant temper, and at the same time 
maintain the author's stalwart theological positions. For 
the fine spirit evinced the whole Lutheran Church should 
feel grateful. A few brief replies have been made to 
the booklet by men in the Ohio and Iowa Synods, to 
whom Dr. Pieper has responded in a supplemental 
chapter.* 

The author's sub-title would indicate that he in- 
tends his production to appeal to all Lutherans in 
America, not merely to the Norwegian Lutherans, whose 
effort at union was the occasion for the issue of his book. 



*Since this was written, a committee of the Joint Synod of 
Ohio has published a reply in pamphlet form. 



6 Election and Conversion 

Therefore, we feel that the General Synod must be in- 
cluded in this "plea for a United Lutheranism in 
America." True, we cannot quite agree with the author 
that his work is a "plea;" it is rather an argument for 
Missouri's position, an earnest and powerful one, and 
an invitation for all other Lutherans to go over upon 
that platform; yet the conciliatory spirit and the evident 
desire for Lutheran union displayed in the book are most 
winsome, and the general tone and manner do not stir 
resentment. 

The immediate occasion for the publication of the 
book was the union of the Norwegian Lutheran Synod 
and the United Norwegian Lutheran Church, by the 
adoption of Articles of Agreement at Madison, Wis. 
These articles are printed in full in the book, so that 
those who wish may read them for themselves ; and they 
are of great importance from every viewpoint, and should 
be read with care. It appears to Dr. Pieper — and to us 
as well — that the articles are somwhat indeterminate on 
the doctrine of election, being a kind of compromise be- 
tween the stiff predestinarianism of Missouri and the 
milder views of Pontoppidan, Gerhard and Scriver. To 
put it as precisely as we know how, some of the articles 
endorse the position of Missouri in the plainest and most 
positive terms, but afterward certain paragraphs are in- 
serted that modify it in such a way that the followers 
of the other view might be tolerated. In short, the 
articles do not seem to be quite consistent throughout. 
Therefore Dr. Pieper thinks that the Norwegians should 
eliminate, or at least qualify, the compromising sections. 

However, in this work we shall not undertake to 
discuss, much less criticise, the Norwegian Articles of 



Missouri's Precise Position 7 

Agreement. Our purpose is to deal with the doctrinal 
position of the Synodical Conference as set forth by Dr. 
Pieper in his impressive booklet. We would simply add 
that perhaps the Madison Agreement is the best possible 
statement the Norwegians are able to make to suit all 
parties, especially in view of the profound and insoluble 
mysteries of the eternal decrees of the Godhead — a sub- 
ject, as we shall try to show later, on which no body of 
men should presume to dogmatize in such a way as to 
exclude from church-fellowship any of their Lutheran 
brethren. We may be wrong, but just now we think 
it would be best for the Norwegian Lutherans to "let 
well enough alone," and go on their way with one 
accord as brethren, and help to do the work of the 
Lutheran Church in the extension of God's kingdom in 
America, without presuming to settle those matters which 
are beyond human comprehension. Thinking and writ- 
ing on these mysterious subjects are of value in their 
place ; and, moreover, it is native to the minds which God 
has given us to delve as deeply as we can into these 
great and holy mysteries; but we do think our theolo- 
gizing and speculating on them ought not to be made the 
ground of division among Lutherans who truly accept 
the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions, even 
though they cannot understand all things in the same 
way. More of this later. 

Dr. Pieper's book is of great value; indeed, it will 
be an "eye-opener" to many people outside of the Synod- 
ical Conference who have not taken the pains to inform 
themselves as to that body's precise doctrinal position. 
For instance, this book ought from now on to preclude 
the charge of Calvinism against Missouri. No more 



8 Election and Conversion 

ought that allegation to be made, because Missouri de- 
nies the charge in toto et ex animo. We Lutherans ought 
to know by experience how trying it is to be charged with 
a doctrine which we have always rejected with all our 
vigor, namely, the error of Consubstantination in the 
Lord's Supper; for, in spite of our oft-repeated denials, 
there are men even today who allege this error to be 
ours.* Not only because Missouri repudiates Calvinism 
should all cease from charging her with it, but also 
because, as we shall show, she explains her position in 
such a way as to disclaim the central doctrine of the 
Calvinistic view of predestination. Now we humbly 
hope, too, that we shall be able to show that our Missouri 
brethren should cease to charge Synergism and Pelag- 
ianism against their fellow-Lutherans who cannot fully 
accept their view-point. 

What is the precise Missouri doctrine of election? 
Let it be distinctly understood that she honestly believes 
she is adhering strictly to the teachings of the Bible and 
of the Formula of Concord, and also thinks that her 
opponents are not correctly interpreting them. Of her 
sincerity no one should for a moment entertain any 
doubts. In a series of plain propositions we believe we 
can precisely set forth her position, which is as follows : 

1. God from eternity elected some to be saved 
and did not elect others. (Do not charge Calvinism here, 
but wait for the rest of the statement.) 

2. God's eternal election of those who are saved 
is in nowise dependent on or conditioned by anything 



*Even so profound a writer as Dr. A. M. Fairbairn charges 
Luther and Lutheran theologians with "consubstantiation." (See 
his "The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, ,, p. 161.) 



Missouri's Precise Position 9 

that is in man or that man can do, but belongs only to 
His own inscrutable counsel, will and purpose. Why- 
God elected those who are finally saved is a mystery 
which he has not revealed, and therefore we should not 
seek any explanation of it. Both the Synergists and the 
Calvinists try to explain it, and that is where they are 
wrong. 

3. The elect are elected and saved solely by grace. 
Sola gratia is the watchword of Missouri when speak- 
ing of the elect. Therefore they are not elected "in view 
of faith" (intuitu fidei) or "good conduct," but wholly 
and solely through the gracious will and purpose of 
God. To try to explain God's reasons for electing certain 
ones, either by intuitu fidei or "good conduct," is going 
beyond Scriptural teaching, and is therefore not only 
synergistic, but presumptuous ; for it is prying into the 
inexplicable mysteries of God's eternal decree. 

4. While the Bible and the Confession do not re- 
veal and explain why those who are finally saved were 
elected out of the mass of mankind, they do clearly tell 
us why the non-elect are condemned; it is solely be- 
cause of their willful sin and guilt, especially in re- 
jecting Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit. They get 
only what they deserve ; on this point the Bible is per- 
fectly clear: "He is not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance;" "Ho, 
every one that thirsteth ;" "Ye will not come to me that 
ye might have life;" "And this is the condemnation 
that light is come into the world, and men love dark- 
ness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." 
God is perfectly in earnest in offering salvation to all 
alike, and desires all to be saved, and so it is not His 



10 Election and Conversion 

fault if some are not saved. This is the slogan of 
universalis gratia which Missouri proclaims with all her 
might. Hence she is not Calvinistic, but utterly re- 
pudiates the Calvinistic formula of a limited atonement 
and a limited proffer of salvation. The Calvinist tries 
to account for the difference between the salvation of 
the elect and the non-salvation of the non-elect, on the 
ground that God makes His call effectual with the 
former, but leaves the others to their fate, because He 
has predestinated the latter to be lost. If He externally 
calls the non-elect He does not mean to make the call 
effectual. This Calvinistic view is utterly repugnant to 
Missouri. 

5. So far as concerns their moral and spiritual 
condition, both the elect and the non-elect are in the 
same case ; both alike guilty ; both alike unable to de- 
liver themselves ; the faith or conduct of the one does 
not decide the matter of their election. Why did God 
then elect the one class and not the other? That is the 
mystery of the eternal divine decree into which we have 
no business to pry, because it has not been revealed in 
God's Word. This is Missouri's position, then, in a few 
words : The elect are predestined from eternity, but 
what the ground or determining cause of their elec- 
tion is, we do not and cannot know. God has not told 
us. The following is Dr. Pieper's clear and admirable 
statement of the case (page 21) : 

"Let us ascertain briefly in what respect we are 
facing a mystery at this point. The Scriptures teach, 
on the one hand, that the grace of God in Christ is 
extended to all alike, and, on the other, that there is 
no difference among men, since all are in the same state 



Missouri's Precise Position 11 

of total depravity and in the same guilt before God, and 
their conduct over against the saving grace of God is 
equally evil. Such being the case, we might conclude, 
either that all men would be saved by the grace of God, 
or that all would be lost by their own guilt. Instead, 
the Scriptures teach that some are saved merely by the 
grace of God, and the rest are lost solely by their own 
guilt. Why this different result when the underlying 
conditions are the same? This is the mystery which no 
man has ever properly solved, and no man ever will 
properly solve in this life, because the Word of God 
offers no solution." 

We break the long paragraph, for Dr. Pieper con- 
tinues : "We should bear in mind that no mystery appears 
when each of the classes, those who are saved and those 
who are lost, are considered separately. In this separate 
view of the two classes everything is explained by the 
Word of God. The Word of God names only one cause 
of the conversion and final salvation of those who are 
actually converted and finally saved ; it is in each and 
every case the grace of God in Christ. Likewise it names 
only one cause of the non-conversion, and failure to be 
saved, of those who are not converted and are not finally 
saved ; it is in each and every case the fault of man ; 
it is owing, in particular, to his resistance against the 
converting operations of the Holy Spirit. The harden- 
ing of man's heart, too, proceeds only on the basis of 
human guilt. 

"But the mystery appears when the classes are com- 
pared with one another. The question then arises : If 
grace is universal and total depravity general, then why 
are not all converted and finally saved? Cur alii prae 



12 Election and Conversion 

aliis? It is this question that the Word of God does not 
answer. At this point we must, with the Formula of 
Concord, acknowledge a mystery insoluble in this life. 
If a man so much as strives to solve this difficulty, he 
proves himself a poor theologian, because he does not 
know the limitations of theological knowledge : he pre- 
sumes to know more in matters spiritual than is revealed 
in the Word of God; while he who actually solves this 
mystery is forthwith proved a false teacher; for he de- 
nies either sola gratia, that is, that those who are saved 
are saved solely by the grace of God, or he denies 
universalis gratia, i. e., that all who are lost are lost by 
their own fault." 

Surely the above is an explicit statement of Mis- 
souri's position. Every thinker can clearly see wherein 
it differs from Calvinism, which teaches that by an 
absolute decree God predestined some to be saved and 
others to be lost. Missouri will have nothing to do 
with f oreordination unto reprobation ; she stoutly up- 
holds the doctrine of universalis gratia. She stops in 
the face of the mystery, and bows humbly to what she 
believes is the teaching of God's Word. So far as we 
have seen, she does not even venture the statement that 
God, for good and right reasons, elected those who will 
be finally saved, while others are not saved. That, how- 
ever, might be implied when Dr. Pieper says this mystery 
will never be solved "in this life;" for such a statement 
connotes the fact that in the next life all will be made 
plain, and we shall all be satisfied that God acted 
graciously and justly, and not arbitrarily. Dr. Pieper 
would have sufficient Biblical ground to qualify with 
such a statement, for "will not the Judge of all the earth 



Missouri's Precise Position 13 

do right?" "Righteousness and justice are the founda- 
tion of His throne" (Ps. 97:2). 

We think now that Dr. Pieper's doctrinal position, 
which is evidently that of the Synodical Conference, has 
been presented with sufficient fullness and explicitness. 
Our next duty will be to attempt to discuss the merits 
of his book. 



II 

A NOTE ON LUTHERAN UNION 

FIRST, observe that this production is a "plea for a 
united Lutheranism in America." To say it as 
graciously as we know how, it does not seem to us to 
be a "plea." It is rather a powerful argument for all 
Lutherans in America to adopt the Missouri platform; 
a polemic (in the good sense) rather than a plea. Of 
course, if the presentation were convincing to all of us, all 
would be very easy ; we would simply go over to Missouri. 
We want it understood that we are not saying this with 
the least degree of sarcasm. However, we in the General 
Synod might put up a strong argument for our con- 
fessional position, and then invite all other Lutherans to 
come and unite with us. If we did that, we would not 
call our polemic a "plea," but would give it its proper 
title. Both the Disciples and the Episcopalians are 
making the same kind of a proposition to all the 
Protestant Churches : "Come over to our position, and 
then we shall all be lovingly united." 

To be perfectly candid, we are persuaded that there 
is little hope of Lutheran unity until the various Luth- 
eran bodies are willing to grant some liberty of opinion 
on those great and abstruse questions about which there 
is, always has been, and always will be, a difference 
among good and spiritually minded Lutherans. Dr. 
Pieper and his fellow-churchmen all declare that there 
is an insoluble mystery about God's eternal decree of 



A Note on Lutheran Union 15 

election. If so, why make it a source of division among 
us? Why make it a shibboleth? Why exclude other 
Lutherans who accept the Scriptures just as heartily and 
hold just as tenaciously to the Unaltered Augsburg Con- 
fession, even though they may have a somewhat different 
understanding of what occurred in the mind of God 
away back in eternity? Really if we all accept the 
Bible, the Augustana, justification by faith alone, salva- 
tion by grace alone (sola gratia), the universal and 
serious offer of salvation (universalis gratia), together 
with the Lutheran doctrines of the person of Christ, the 
atonement, the sacraments, etc., does it matter so much 
about our particularistic ideas of God's eternal sov- 
ereignty and decrees? And we all do accept the above 
named precious doctrines, every one of them, as we 
shall show in a later chapter. 

After reading Dr. Pieper's booklet, we read over 
again, for perhaps the fifth time, Dr. Jacobs' excellent 
discussion of the subject of predestination in his book, 
"A Summary of the Christian Faith." What a pleasure 
it has been to read and compare the views of these two 
expert and sincere Lutheran theologians ! Both of them 
are thoroughly Biblical, appealing to and interpreting the 
same passages of Scripture ; both of them are stalwart 
Lutherans, accepting confessionally the whole Book of 
Concord; both of them quote liberally from the same 
articles of the Formula of Concord ; both of them are 
intensely in earnest, and possessed of great scholarship; 
both of them are equally cogent and sincere advocates 
of sola gratia and universalis gratia; both of them with 
like vigor repudiate Synergism and Calvinism; and yet 
Dr. Pieper pointedly rejects the doctrine of election 



16 Election and Conversion 

intuitu fidei, while Dr. Jacobs accepts and strongly de- 
fends it! Surely in such a case, this mooted doctrine 
ought not to be made the ground of ecclesiastical strife 
and mutual exclusion. Surely there are some doctrines 
that the dogmaticians may leave in the sphere of 
Lutheran liberty, without endangering "die reine Lehre" 
or the welfare of our Lutheran Zion. 

It is our purpose to dwell at some length on the 
question of Lutheran unity in our last chapter, and so 
we will not develop that subject any further at this time. 
However, it is pertinent here to make a confession. We 
have passed through a strenuous mental wrestling match 
before venturing to submit this work for publication. 
The question over which we have struggled for weeks 
has been, "Shall we, or shall we not?" It was by no 
means an easy question to decide. 

First, it would be so much easier, so much more 
comfortable, to go along quietly, make no disturbance, 
stir no criticism and no further debate, and just let mat- 
ters ecclesiastical and doctrinal go their own way. Why 
challenge Dr. Pieper's work? Would it not be just as 
well to let it have free course among our Lutheran 
people ? 

Then, there is the question of Lutheran comity and 
good will, with some prospect of organic union by and 
by. And Lutheran unity is a consummation so devoutly 
to be wished that we may truly say it has been a "hobby" 
with us for many years. And now here is an irenic and 
kindly presentation of Missouri's view-point that has 
charmed many people of the Lutheran Church, and that 
seems on the surface to be a real plea and overture for 
Lutheran unification. Some quite favorable reviews and 



A Note on Lutheran Union 17 

editorials on the production have appeared in several 
Lutheran periodicals that have hitherto been rather 
stoutly and frankly opposed to Missouri's doctrinal 
position. It really appears, on the surface, at least, as 
if the book might be adapted to promote the glorious 
cause of Lutheran union. Might not a criticism of Dr. 
Pieper's book just at this critical time simply stir more 
debate, unsettle the minds of some who have been almost 
won over, and thus postpone the day of Lutheran con- 
ciliation and peace? In the face of these considerations, 
we have more than once been tempted to put the lid on 
our typewriter, refuse to write another line, and con- 
sign the manuscript already prepared to the quiet 
security of the waste-basket. 

And yet! There is always that "and yet." When- 
ever the temptation came to hold our peace, and the 
desire for a comfortable time allured us, our conscience 
started up and gave us disquietude. This statement may 
create a smile, even a smile of condescension; neverthe- 
less, it is the truth. And why? Because in reading and 
studying Dr. Pieper's book, we became more and more 
convinced of certain serious faults and weaknesses in 
the author's method of citing the Scriptures, in some 
of the premises assumed, and in the conclusions drawn 
therefrom. Largely the charm of the book is its kind 
and gentle spirit. Besides, the author has an ingenious 
way of citing proof-texts, and collating and assembling 
them, so that readers who do not examine them carefully 
in the light of their contextual settings and relations, will 
be inclined to think the argument conclusive. His logic, 
too, is often ordered in such a way as to carry convic- 
tion. And when he assumes a premise, he pushes on 



18 Election and Conversion 

relentlessly to the conclusion. Still more, there is much 
display of erudition in the work; many people, there- 
fore, will be disposed to think that a man who has com- 
mand of such large stores of learning must be able to 
say the final word. All these elements make the book 
fascinating and all but convincing to persons who read, 
but do not stop to analyze, sift and investigate for 
themselves. 

And yet, spite of it all, we cannot bring ourselves 
to believe that the author's main propositions are well 
taken, or that his conclusions are correctly drawn, either 
from a Biblical or a Lutheran view-point. Indeed, we 
think the errors of the book are quite serious, as we shall 
try to show. So the question that rose in our mind, and 
would not down, was this : What a pity it would be — 
indeed, what a misfortune — if some of the great branches 
of our Lutheran Church should be drawn into a union 
on a wrong basis, or, at least, a basis that should after- 
wards be found to be far from satisfactory! Are any 
of us, who have hitherto had a different conception of 
conversion and election, ready to go into a union on the 
Missouri basis? Have we given the subject sufficient 
study? We think not; the subject needs still more dis- 
cussion. A union on the proposed basis at this time 
would be hasty, premature. The other side should be fully 
presented, and in a new form, at this strategic point. We 
are persuaded that a union effected on the Missouri basis 
would not be lasting. The mistake would soon be 
detected, for you cannot keep men from thinking and 
investigating. 

All the more necessary does it seem to be to present 
the other side, from the fact that some men appear to 



A Note on Lutheran Union 19 

think that Dr. Pieper has said the final word; that the 
question is now a closed one, and that no further dis- 
cussion is needed. This, we are convinced by our 
investigations, is a mistake. While we are extremely 
anxious for peace, we do not want peace on a wrong 
basis ; nor are we willing that all the concessions should 
have to be made by one side — the side, too, which, we 
are sincerely convinced, has the stronger Biblical teach- 
ing in its favor. 

If any one should accuse us of stirring up feeling, 
we would reply that Dr. Pieper did not spare the feelings 
of his opponents. Of course, as we have said, he showed 
a comparatively gentle and irenic spirit; yet he did not 
recede one hair's breadth from the rigid Missouri posi- 
tion. He demands that all the yielding be done by those 
who differ with him and his Synod. Nor is that all. 
He again and again accuses his opponents of Synergism, 
which is a term of reproach in the Lutheran Church. If 
you want to blacken a man's good name theologically, 
just call him a Synergist. Worse yet, Dr. Pieper calls 
his theological opponents Pelagians, which is a very 
opprobrious term in the Lutheran Church. At the same 
time he demands that the charge of Calvinism against 
Missouri be withdrawn. To call a Missourian a Calvinist 
is also regarded a serious blot on his reputation. How- 
ever, our friend does not seem to realize that it hurts 
others just as much to be called Synergists and Pelagians 
as it does our Missouri brethren to be called Calvinists. 
You see, all through this polemic there is not one iota 
of yielding on the Missouri side, but every concession 
is to be made by those who differ from her. 

Still more, Dr. Pieper from beginning to end charges 



20 Election and Conversion 

his opponents with teaching human merit and work- 
righteousness. This indictment must by all means be 
disclaimed and disproved. It would stultify the rest of 
us as Lutherans to let it go unchallenged. Every true 
Lutheran knows that he discards such a doctrine with 
all his might. If Lutheran concord is to be effected, as 
we hope and pray it may, the charge of Synergism and 
human merit must be withdrawn, just as the accusation 
of Calvinism against Missouri must be withdrawn. 

In view of the voluminous replies that have been 
made to the Missouri contentions, it may seem super- 
fluous to add another polemic on the subject. There is 
Dr. Stellhorn's great work in German, which we regret 
to say we have not been able to read. However, we have 
had the privilege of reading the large book (802 octavo 
pages) edited by Dr. E. L. S. Tressel, entitled,"The Error 
of Missouri." (According to the title page, it was edited 
by Dr. Schodde; perhaps Dr. Tressel stood sponsor for 
its publication.) This work is in English, and contains 
the powerful argument of Drs. Stellhorn and Schmidt 
and of Revs. Allwardt and Ernst. There is also Dr. 
Jacobs' compact and lucid chapter on the divine purpose 
in his work, "A Summary of the Christian Faith." 
Besides, many magazine articles have appeared setting 
forth the anti-Missouri views. These can be secured 
and examined by those who are interested in the whole 
controversy. 

Still, we do not think everything has been said on the 
subject. This little work, we venture to think, will give the 
arguments in succinct form. In many respects, too, they 
are put in a different way, perhaps in simpler language 
and in shorter and more simply constructed sentences. 



A Note on Lutheran Union 21 

There are several points which, in our humble judgment, 
have not been made sufficiently clear by the opponents of 
the Missouri dogmatics : namely, the importance and or- 
ganic relation of the Call and Illumination in the Order of 
Salvation; the ethical and psychical character of con- 
version ; the real nature of a free will ; the Holy Spirit's 
movements in creating and implanting spiritual life in 
the soul, and thus enabling freedom and faith ; the danger 
of misunderstanding the formula, "election in view of 
faith." Moreover, the books above mentioned, having 
been issued some years ago, could not anticipate all the 
arguments of Dr. Pieper in his last work.* 

The foregoing are our reasons for composing this 
thesis. In the closing chapter we shall try to outline a 
broader and more satisfactory platform for fraternal 
fellowship and co-operation in the Lutheran Church of 
America. On the basis there proposed we believe all 
true Lutherans can unite and work, until the time comes 
when, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may 
be able to adjust our confessional and doctrinal differ- 
ences ; and then organic union may be in sight. We shall 
now proceed to review Dr. Pieper's book with as much 
candor, fairness, courtesy and thoroughness as we can 
command. 



*At this writing (or rather proof-reading) the English 
edition of this brochure by Dr. Schuette and his committee, 
issued for the Joint Synod of Ohio, has not yet appeared, and 
therefore we cannot say how fully all the points have been de- 
veloped. There is little doubt, however, that the reply is masterly. 



Ill 

THE LUTHERAN REGULATIVE DOCTRINE 

A SERIOUS doctrinal blemish in the book under 
review is this : It puts into a minor place the 
material, chief and regulative principle of the Reforma- 
tion, namely, justification by faith. This was the doc- 
trine which Luther made central and pivotal, and by 
which he judged and decided all other doctrines in the 
Biblical system. He contended ever that justification 
by faith alone was "the sign of a standing or a falling 
Church." He would not subordinate this doctrine to any 
other doctrine, or to all other doctrines combined, but 
judged all by it, and assembled and co-ordinated all 
around it. This is also the view-point of the Augustana. 
To our mind it is the view-point of the Formula of Con- 
cord. If the eleventh chapter is read and studied in the 
search-light of this cardinal principle, it will be much 
more easily comprehended and evaluated. 

But what is the impression made upon one who care- 
fully reads Dr. Pieper's book ? That another doctrine has 
been introduced, not only as the chief one, but also as 
the regulative one; as it were, the major premise. That 
doctrine is the doctrine of the divine decrees, the divine 
sovereignty, election, predestination. This is the begin- 
ning and the end, the principal view-point; it controls 
everything; it never for a moment slips out of sight; 
all other doctrines must take a secondary place. Even 
faith is treated meagerly, is subjected to election, is taken 



The Lutheran Regulative Doctrine 23 

quite out of the sphere of freedom, and is so miscon- 
ceived as to be made a mechanical thing, instead of the 
ethical and spiritual act it is always represented to be in 
the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. According to 
this dissertation, man is not elected in view of the fact 
that he accepts Christ by faith, but he both has faith 
and is justified because he has been elected unto salva- 
tion from eternity by a mysterious decree. If we mistake 
not, this is reversing the Lutheran order, making divine 
sovereignty central, and crowding justification by faith 
off to one side. Luther and his co-laborers did not begin 
with an insoluble mystery pertaining to the Godhead 
before the world was, but with the plain and simple 
revelation of Christ and His way of justification by 
faith; and then, if they wanted to work back to the 
mysteries, they would judge them all in the light of the 
simple revelation. It was the Calvinists who began with 
the divina decreta, and made everything else subservient 
to God's absolute sovereignty. We beg pardon for hav- 
ing to say it, but just in this one respect the Missouri 
view-point is more like that of the Calvinists and less like 
that of the Lutherans. We hasten to say, however, for 
fear of misunderstanding, that Missouri's explanation of 
the doctrine of election itself is far from being Cal- 
vinistic; is, in fact, anti-Calvinistic, as has been shown. 
Are we not correct in saying that the central and 
regulative principle of our Missouri friends is election, 
not justification by faith? Just note how little faith is 
discussed in this treatise; how little it is urged; what a 
small and insignificant place it occupies in comparison 
with election ; how it must ever step aside to make room 
for predestination; how belittlingly the intuitu fidei is 



24 Election and Conversion 

represented, as if faith were a matter of small im- 
portance; note, too, that justification is scarcely men- 
tioned in the entire production; and yet with Paul the 
great question was how a man could be accounted right- 
eous before God. This is the doctrine, too, that saved 
Luther and made him the reformer he was ; the doctrine 
to which he always gave the primacy in his theological 
system. Does any one suppose that he ever would have 
made Rome tremble, that he ever would have changed 
the currents of religious and civil history, if he had spent 
much of his time in debating the order of God's decrees 
in eternity? Indeed, he always deprecated controversies 
on this very subject, as any one may see by reading the 
quotations presented in Jacobs' "Summary of the 
Christian Faith" (pp. 576-580). 

Perchance the reply will be made that our Missouri 
friends do not mean to neglect or depreciate faith and 
justification, but that just now the doctrine of election 
is the one in dispute, and for that reason it occupies the 
foremost place in the controversy. That point we might 
readily admit, if it were not for the fact that our Con- 
cordia friends deal with every passage of Scripture, even 
the passages that refer to faith and justification, from 
the view-point of election. Note their theological method : 
If faith seems to come in the way of election, then faith 
must step aside, never election. Thus did not Paul ; thus 
did not Luther, who quotes approvingly the salient advice 
of Staupitz: "Begin with the wounds of Christ; then 
all arguing concerning Predestination will come to an 
end" (Jacobs, ut supra, 578). Again in Dr. Pieper's 
disposition toward intuitu fidei, he seems to treat faith 
as if it were so insignificant a thing that it would be 



The Lutheran Regulative Doctrine 25 

absurd to think that it could in the least have affected 
God's eternal self-determinations. This surely is not the 
servile place given to faith in John 3:16; nor in Paul's 
preaching to the Philippian jailor; nor in Christ's words 
when He said : "Let not your heart be troubled ; believe 
in God, and believe in me;" nor when He said: "As 
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so 
must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever 
believeth on Him may have eternal life." 

How much the Bible makes of faith ! How little, 
comparatively, of election! Everywhere Christ insisted 
on faith and belief, while scarcely more than half a dozen 
times does He refer to "the elect," and almost always in 
passages whose intrepretation is more or less difficult. 
Note how often faith is mentioned in the epistles. Two 
of Paul's epistles — Romans and Galatians — were ex- 
pressly written to prove that men are justified by faith, 
and not by the deeds of the law or their own righteous- 
ness. The letter to the Hebrews devotes a whole chapter 
— the 11th — to a panegyric on the heroes of faith. It 
declares that "without faith it is impossible to please 
Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He 
is, and that He is a rewarder of all them that diligently 
seek Him." Our point is that faith is the outstanding 
doctrine of the New Testament, and therefore should 
take precedence of a doctrine like election, which is 
treated more incidentally. 

Another mistake of the book is the constant as- 
sumption that faith is a matter of merit. That this is 
made a major premise is obvious from the fact that Dr. 
Pieper almost always joins the two terms, "in view of 
faith" and man's "good conduct," thus putting them in- 



26 Election and Conversion 

to the same category; also the fact that he constantly 
charges those who accept the doctrine of intuitu fidei 
with Synergism — that is, with thinking that God elects 
men on account of some merit in themselves, some 
natural goodness. 

No true Lutheran has ever taught that there is merit 
in faith. The fact is, Paul, for this very reason, says 
we are justified through faith and not by works or the 
deeds of the law. Note how clearly Paul puts it (Rom. 
3:27, 28): "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. 
By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. 
Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith 
without the deeds of the law." Again (Rom. 4:16) : 
"For this cause it is of faith that it may be according to 
grace." In the preceding chapter, verses 24 and 25, he 
says: "Being justified freely by His grace through the 
redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth 
to be a propitiation, through faith, in His blood," etc. 
In one place he says we are justified by faith, in another 
by grace, showing that in either case it is God's grace 
that justifies. And here is a classical passage, and a 
decisive one (Eph. 2:8, 9): "For by grace have ye 
been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; 
it is the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man should 
boast." 

Thus it is seen that faith has been made, in Scrip- 
ture, the channel through which justification comes to 
man for the very reason that it will exclude all human 
merit, and make man's salvation a pure work of God's 
grace. Sola gratia — it is the teaching of God's Holy 
Word. Precisely the same is the teaching of our 
Lutheran theologies that firmly uphold the material 



The Lutheran Regulative Doctrine 27 

principle of the Reformation and the regulative doc- 
trine of Lutheran theology. We always say, Justificatio 
propter Christum per fid em, never propter fidem per 
Christum. Salvation comes to the believer on account 
of the merits of Christ through faith, not the reverse. 
It is not faith itself, but only its object — Christ and His 
vicarious work — that has merit, and is the ground of 
salvation. (See Jacobs, ut supra, page 190.) 

From the very nature of faith it can have no merit. 
Faith is simply the act of the soul by which it accepts 
God's gift of salvation. There surely can be no merit 
in a poor, unworthy, guilty sinner accepting the grace 
which God gratuitously offers him. No; he feels so 
unworthy that it seems to be even a shame to accept 
salvation at the hands of a justly offended God. The 
fact is, the necessity of simply accepting the gratuity, 
without the ability to do anything to make him deserving, 
accentuates and enhances his unworthiness. If it were 
forced upon him nolens volens, he would not feel half 
so unworthy. If a beggar, who has never served you 
in any way, but has rather been a parasite on society, 
comes hungry to your door, and you proffer him food, 
there is no merit in his simply reaching out his hand 
and taking the benefaction. No more is there any merit 
in the unworthy, but penitent, sinner taking the gift of 
salvation. 

Neither does such a sinner feel that he deserves any- 
thing on account of his faith. There is nothing in the 
act of faith that ministers to pride or that gives room 
for boasting. It is rather the impenitent sinner who 
boasts of his merits, and shows a self-righteous spirit, 
and says he needs nothing from God, and does not care 
for his proffered pardon and salvation. 



28 Election and Conversion 

Now, what is the connection between this discussion 
and the doctrine of election? It is this: Even if God 
did, by virtue of his foreknowledge, elect believers unto 
salvation, in view of their faith, it would not destroy 
the heavenly doctrine of sola gratia, because faith simply 
accepts the gratuity from the hands of the God of love 
and mercy. In view of the fact, therefore, that justifi- 
cation by faith connotes salvation by grace alone, we 
would not deem it unworthy of the wise and holy God 
to predestine unto eternal life those who He foresaw 
from eternity would believe on the Redeemer whom He 
foreordained from eternity to send to them. If He fore- 
ordained that men should be saved at all, if they fell 
into sin, and if He foreordained that they should be saved 
through faith in Christ (as He did), surely it would not 
be out of accord with His whole wonderful and gracious 
scheme, if He should have foreordained that those who 
He foresaw would exercise such faith should be chosen 
and kept unto eternal life. So we think that the ethical 
objection to the intuitu fidei doctrine has been removed. 
Surely, if God honors faith so much as to make it the 
vehicle of justification in time, it would not derogate 
from His honor for Him to have taken it into considera- 
tion in the counsels of eternity. God must have thought 
a good deal of faith, or He would not have elected from 
eternity that men should be justified and saved through 
faith. The Biblical grounds for this doctrine will be 
shown in a later chapter. 

Let us put the matter in another way. What was it 
that predetermined God to send His Son into the world? 
Was it not the fact that he foresaw that man would sin ? 
Thus we read of "the Lamb that was slain from the 



The Lutheran Regulative Doctrine 29 

foundation of the world." So it is plain that God must 
have foreordained the whole plan of redemption in view 
of sin. Then why might He not predetermine salva- 
tion in view of faith? If He could foreknow that Adam 
would sin, could He not also foreknow every person who 
would believe and continue in Christ to the end? And 
if foreordination in view of sin would not dishonor Him, 
why would foreordination in view of faith dishonor 
Him? All the more so, since sin is something entirely 
obnoxious to Him and contrary to His will, while faith 
is a holy principle, an activity begotten in the soul of 
the believer by His Spirit. 

In proof that we have correctly represented 
Missouri's position in saying that God foreordained the 
plan of redemption through Christ in view of sin, we 
quote from Dr. A. L. Graebner's "Doctrinal Theology," 
page 43, under the locus, "Decree of Redemption :" 

"The decree of redemption is an eternal act of God, 
whereby He graciously, and with divine wisdom, pur- 
posed to work, in the fullness of time, through the Son 
made manifest in the flesh, a redemption of mankind, and 
to prepare a way of salvation for the whole human race, 
whose fall He had foreseen, but not decreed." 

What could be more lucidly stated than that? So, 
since God foreknew the fall of man, and, in view of it, 
foreordained a plan of redemption, He must have fore- 
ordained all the articulations and movements of that 
plan; therefore He could also foresee the faith and per- 
severance of the elect, and choose them in view of their 
acceptance of His mercy. The weakness of the above 
definition by Dr. Graebner is, it fails to say how God 
eternally purposed to save men — namely, through faith. 



30 Election and Conversion 

We regret to say that faith is not even mentioned. Does 
not this fact prove our earlier contention — that the pre- 
destinarians always make election, instead of justification 
by faith, the ruling doctrine? Is it not a peculiar over- 
sight that an elaborate definition of "the decree of re- 
demption" should ignore faith, which is included in the 
"gospel in nuce" as Luther called John 3:16? 

Dr. Pieper is so jealous of his favorite doctrine that 
he will not admit for a moment that faith might have 
been antecedent to election. That view, he thinks, would 
dishonor God. Yet, if he insists on speaking of eternal 
things in the terms of time, he must admit that the fall 
of man into sin was antecedent to the foreordination of 
the whole gracious plan of redemption. If the one does 
not detract from God's glory, neither does the other. But 
the very fact that he will not permit faith to precede 
election proves what we have said before — that election, 
not justifying faith, is the regnant doctrine in his theo- 
logical system. 



IV 
LOCATING THE MYSTERY 

NEXT we must consider the locus, so clearly stated 
by Professor Pieper, as to just where the mystery 
of election lies. He locates it in God's diverse ways of 
treating men — electing some and leaving others to their 
fate. It is not that God does not want the finally 
obdurate to be saved; that Dr. Pieper asserts and re- 
asserts many times. We are thankful that our Missouri 
brethren take this view, and insist upon it so strongly. 
It is the chief thing that differentiates them from the 
Calvinists. However, the mystery is, why some are saved 
and others are not, seeing all are alike guilty and all 
alike under spiritual disability. That, according to our 
Missouri brethren, is the inexplicable mystery of the di- 
vine election. God alone knows why some are elected 
and others are not, and He has kept the secret in the 
inner chamber of His own counsels. 

Now we venture to say, humbly and honestly, that 
by their speculations on the eternal decree, our good 
brethren have confused matters, and have placed the 
mystery where the Bible does not place it, but where, on 
the contrary, the Bible gives the very clearest reason why 
some people are saved and others lost. For a time let 
us try to forget what God may have done in eternity, 
and let us see what He has said and done in time through 
His gracious revelation. Thus we may be able to de- 
termine the ground of His discriminations between the 



32. Election and Conversion 

finally saved and the finally lost. What does the Bible 
say? We might cite hundreds of proof-texts, but a few 
of the outstanding ones will suffice. 

Note, first, how Jesus Christ Himself makes the 
distinction in John 3:16-19: "God so loved the world 
that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever be- 
lieveth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life. . . . He that believeth on Him is not judged; he 
that believeth not hath been judged already, because he 
hath not believed on the only begotten Son of God. And 
this is the judgment, that light is come into the world, 
and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because 
their deeds were evil." Here Christ makes it very clear 
why some are saved and others lost; the former believe 
on Christ; the latter do not believe on Him. So our 
Lord does not seem to make any mystery over the dif- 
ference of treatment that God accords to the two classes 
of men. Why, then, should men go back to something 
that occurred in the eternal counsels of God, and find 
a mystery? 

Let us note some other passages. We know that 
faith and repentance always go together; one connotes 
the other. At the beginning of Christ's ministry He said : 
"Repent ye ; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand/' In 
Mark's gospel it is put in this way: "Now after John 
was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the 
gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the 
kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe the 
gospel." So again the conditions of salvation are made 
repentance and faith. Why cannot we preach this truth 
in all its simplicity just as Jesus did? At another place 
our Saviour said: "Except ye repent, ye shall all like- 



Locating the Mystery 33 

wise perish." So those who perish are those who do not 
repent, implying clearly that those who do repent shall 
be saved. Here is another classical passage (Mark 
16:15, 16): "And He said unto them, Go ye into all 
the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." 
Then what? "He that believeth, and is baptised shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." 
Here again it is faith and un faith that make the differ- 
ence. Our point is that Christ does not posit the differ- 
ence in the destiny of saints and sinners in God's eternal 
decree, but in man's acceptance or rejection of the gospel. 

When the Philippian jailer exclaimed in his terror, 
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas took 
no time to speculate about the mysteries either of faith 
or of election, but simply answered: "Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy 
house." And we know the sequel. Oh ! we need more 
simple, childlike faith, and less refined speculation. 

Let us look at another classical passage, a veritable 
sedes doctrinae, in the language of theology. It is found 
in Paul's famous foreordination thesis, on which the ad- 
vocates of election depend for many of their arguments, 
Rom. 8-11. One should read all these chapters, not only 
the eighth and ninth ; indeed, it is best to begin at Rom. 
1, and read on through Rom. 11. Paul's argument 
here refers to the rejection of Israel and the acceptance 
of the Gentiles. After all he says about the election of 
some and the rejection of others, he closes the discussion 
of his great theme in Rom. 11:17-36, a part of which 
we will quote according to the beautiful version of the 
Twentieth Century New Testament. We should note that 
the "cultivated olive" refers to the Jews, and the "wild 



34 Election and Conversion 

olive" to the Gentiles. Says Paul: "Some, however, of 
the branches were broken off, and you, who were only a 
wild olive, were grafted in among them, and came to 
share with them the root which is the source of the rich- 
ness of the cultivated olive. Yet do not exult over the 
other branches. But, if you do exult over them, remem- 
ber that you do not support the root, but the root sup- 
ports you. But some branches, you will say, were broken 
off, so that I might be grafted in. True ; it was because 
of their want of faith that they were broken off, and it 
is because of your faith that you are standing. Do not 
think too highly of yourself, but beware. For if God 
did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare 
you. See, then, both the goodness and the severity of 
God — his severity toward those who fell, and his good- 
ness toward you, provided you continue to confide in 
that goodness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And 
they, too, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will 
be grafted in ; for God has it in His power to graft them 
in again." 

So, after all Paul's discussion of foreordination, he 
concludes that it was Israel's unbelief that cut them off, 
and it was through faith that the Gentiles were grafted 
in. Paul's reason for turning from the Jews to the 
Gentiles is given plainly in Acts 13 :46. "Seeing ye 
thrust it (the Word) from you . . . lo, we turn to the 
Gentiles." 

So our point is that the Bible does not make a 
mystery out of the fact that some people are saved. It 
reveals that just as clearly as it reveals why the repro- 
bate are finally condemned. Why should the Missouri- 
ans say that one is clearly revealed and the other is a 



Locating the Mystery 35 

profound mystery, when the Bible tells us just as clearly 
why some are saved as why others are lost? "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; he that believeth 
not shall be condemned." Ponder the two statements; 
is not one just as explicit as the other? Again: "He 
that believeth on Him is not condemned ; he that believeth 
not is condemned already." Compare the two statements. 
Is not the one as unmistakable as the other ? Why locate 
the mystery here where God speaks plainly.* It is be- 
cause, instead of accepting the Bible's simple teaching, 
we have tried to cipher out some things that are too 
deep for our limited capacities. We have tried to posit 
mystery at a certain point, as if, in the ultimate analysis, 
the whole world of both nature and grace were not be- 
yond our understanding. Who can understand the 
eternal decrees of the absolute God? Ah, yes, true 
enough ! But you need not go so far afield to find the 
inscrutable. Who knows what matter is? Who knows 
what mind is? Who can figure out the mysterious con- 
nection between the mind and the brain? Who can tell 
how the mind can determine itself in liberty, how it can 
initiate motion and action? So in regard to faith. Who 
can tell how we can lay hold on Christ by faith? Who 

♦Missouri accepts the Apology of the Augsburg Confession 
as part of her creed. This is what the Apology says (Jacobs' 
edition, page 150) : 'And this faith makes a distinction between 
those by whom salvation is attained, and those by whom it is 
not attained. Faith makes the distinction between the worthy 
and the unworthy, because eternal life has been promised to the 
justified; and faith justifies." 

The Formula of Concord says (page 527) : "In Him 
(Christ), therefore, we should seek the eternal election of the 
Father, who, in His eternal divine counsel, determined that He 
would save no one except those who acknowledge His Son, 
Christ, and truly believe on Him." 



36 Election and Conversion 

can define the precise point where grace and freedom 
meet and coalesce, and where faith is sufficiently enabled 
by the power of God to become self-active? Yes, there 
are mysteries all along the line.* 

And yet how plain some things are — the things that 
are practical and that we need to know. We know that 
we have bodies and that we have souls ; that we feel with 
our nerves of sensation ; that we cognize, feel and will 
with our minds; that, if we are Christians, we have 
accepted salvation by faith, and that not in our strength, 
and yet that we were not compelled to believe; that, if 
we had not accepted God's gift, we could not have had 
it: that it was all by grace, even the enabling of our 
faith. Some dialectician may come along and challenge 
us thus: "Prove all these things." We reply, we can- 
not prove them; we know them; they are part of our 
consciousness and experience. So it is with the plan of 
salvation ; God has clearly taught in His word that the 
dividing line between the justified and the lost is faith and 
unbelief. What He has revealed in time must have been 
predetermined in eternity. If God in time makes faith — 
or, at least, the willingness to have faith, as we shall 
show later — the turning-point in the sinner's career, He 
must have foreseen this contingency in eternity and 
chosen accordingly. This would not be inconsistent with 
His exalted character, nor detract from His glory, nor 
nullify sola gratia. 

*At one place Dr. Pieper declares that no man is a "good 
theologian" who tries to explain the mystery of the decrees 
relative to election. We maintain that we have attempted to 
explain no mystery in the foregoing argument, but have simply 
stated what is the plain teaching of God's Word. How God can 
foreknow contingent events, and yet leave a moral agent free, 
is a matter we leave to His omniscience. 



Locating the Mystery 37 

Why should it derogate from God's glory and grace 
for Him to elect in foresight of faith? Is faith so small 
and insignificant a thing in God's eyes? Not according 
to the Bible: "Without faith it is impossible to please 
Him;" "Being justified by faith;" "That whosoever 
believeth on Him might not perish;" "This is the work 
of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent;" 
"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but faith, 
which worketh by love;" "This is the victory that over- 
cometh the world, even our faith;" "Faith is the sub- 
stance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not 
seen ;" "By faith" Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, 
and all the rest were sustained and performed their 
mighty works. The Lutheran Church also gives to faith 
this exalted place. It is not belittling to God to elect 
in view of faith. In any case He must have had faith in 
mind in eternity, for He elected to justify and save sin- 
ners through faith. 

Further, if election is an inscrutable mystery, kept 
secret in God's eternal counsel, how does Missouri know 
that it was not made in view of faith? That would 
imply a good deal of knowledge about an inscrutable 
mystery. Again, according to Missouri, each individual 
who is finally saved was predestined unto faith, which 
must mean that when he was elected, his faith was elected 
with him. That view eliminates every vestige of free- 
dom from faith, and therefore spells "irresistible grace." 
Missouri also teaches — at least, she did some years ago — 
that "God gives richer grace to the elect than to the 
non-elect" (see Tressel's work, page 600). The con- 
clusion must be unconditional election. 

The St. Louis theologians are, we think, in error 



38 Election and Conversion 

when they set up an antinomy between election and 
freedom; for since God in eternity elected to create free 
beings, He must have also in eternity elected to respect 
their freedom, and relate Himself thereto. This prin- 
ciple does not subtract from His glory, grace and power ; 
it only exalts them, for a God who can respect and 
permit a moral agent's autonomy, and at the same time 
carry out his own vast plans, must be infinite in all His 
perfections. 

There is always an element of freedom in faith. 
Otherwise it would not be the gift of God, but would 
be something forcibly imposed. While no man can be- 
lieve on Christ by his own natural powers (for man is 
dead in trespasses and sins), yet when faith is enabled 
by God's grace in regeneration, it must lay hold upon 
Christ freely. God will not force any man to accept 
Christ by faith ; nor will God do man's believing for 
him. When faith is empowered by God's Spirit, man 
must exercise that power. Even Dr. Walter once said: 
"He who opposes not merely his natural resistance to the 
operation of the Holy Spirit, but also obstinate and 
obdurate resistance, him God Himself cannot then help; 
for God will force no one to conversion ; a forced con- 
version is no conversion." (Tressel's work, page 171, 
quoted from Walter's "Postille," p. 91.) 

Looking upon faith as a matter of merit is the 
fatal error of Missouri. It colors her whole theology. 
How a body of Lutherans, studying the Bible, the con- 
fessions and the Lutheran dogmaticians, could get such 
a mistaken conception of simple saving faith is indeed 
a mystery to us. We need not go back to the eternal 
divine decrees to find mysteries. If faith is the free 



Locating the Mystery 39 

gift of God, as the Bible maintains, how can it be a 
matter of merit? And if, after it has been divinely 
bestowed or enabled, it simply takes God's gratuity, it 
surely can claim no desert. 

Whether we have gathered up all the links in our 
argument or not, this is sure: we have made faith in 
Christ the central and regulative principle, just as Paul 
did, just as Luther did, just as the Augustana and all 
other Lutheran Symbols do. If anything in our Lutheran 
system of doctrine must bend, or step aside, it cannot be 
faith in Christ; for He is the express image of God's 
person, His perfect revelation, and faith in Him is our 
only hope. 

At this point, and while we think of it, we wish 
to commend a gracious statement by Dr. Pieper. He 
says that his opponents are not as self-righteous as their 
theories would seem to imply; that their hearts are 
better than their heads. Down in their Christian hearts, 
he says, they are not Pharisaical, saying: "We thank 
thee, Lord, that we are not as other men are." They 
do not think that they have been elected and saved be- 
cause they are better than others either by nature or 
practice, but solely on account of the goodness and grace 
of God and the merits of Jesus Christ. 

Dr. Pieper has estimated his fellow-Christians cor- 
rectly, and is to be commended for his gentle and gen- 
erous judgment. However, while he thinks their hearts 
are right, though their heads are wrong, we think both 
their heads and hearts are right. First, they know that 
they have been saved by grace through faith; and that 
not of themselves; it is the gift of God; second, they 
would not want God to elect them out of the mass of 



40 Election and Conversion 

mankind by an arbitrary decision, whether in time or 
eternity; but if he gave the others also an equal and 
sufficient chance (gratia sufficiens), the redeemed can 
have all the more faith in Him, because of the very 
fact that He is just and impartial, as well as plenteous 
in mercy and grace. 



V 

THE HEART OF THE QUESTION 

IT may be thought that we have not yet reached the 
heart of the question, because we have not defined 
faith, nor shown how it is begotten, and why some 
persons exercise faith while others do not. If there is 
any mystery about the implanting of faith in the sinner's 
heart, we do see why it need be referred back to God's 
eternal decrees. Of course, mystery inheres in all the 
operations of divine grace upon the soul. 

At this juncture we want to have one thing distinctly 
understood; we do not believe that God ever elected any 
one in view of "good conduct." The expression may 
have been used by some polemists in an innocent way, 
but it connotes the idea of human desert, and of that 
we will have none. We decline to use the phrase "good 
conduct" in connection with election, or to be responsi- 
ble for it in any way or in any degree.* But with faith 



*It must be admitted, however, that Luther himself affords 
some ground for using the word "conduct." He says : "Few 
are chosen, that is, few so deport themselves toward the gospel 
that God has pleasure in them." The words "conduct" and 
"deportment" are synonymous. We note too, that Professor 
R. C. H. Lenski, of Capital University, Columbus, Ohio, defends 
the word "conduct" in a recent editorial in reply to Dr. Pieper. 
With the explanation given by Professor Lenski, who attributes 
the said "conduct" solely to the grace of God, there can be no 
objection to the word. However, for ourself we decline to use 
it, because it may be so easily misinterpreted. It seems to us, 
too, to assign too much activity and positive co-operation to man 
before regeneration. At this point it may be well to point out 



42 Election and Conversion 

it is different, for Paul says, "It is by faith that it might 
be by grace." 

In discussing the nature and office of faith we must 
think clearly and discriminate sharply, if we would avoid 
error — the error of Pelagianism, on the one hand, and 
of Calvinism, on the other. 

At this point we wish to say emphatically that we 
reject, in toto, the Pelagian view, because it does not 
agree with the unmistakable teaching of God's Word, 
which says : "Except any one be born anew, he cannot 
see the kingdom of God;" "Without me ye can do 
nothing;" "No man cometh to me, except the Father 
draw him;" "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; 
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit;" "The natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for 
they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, 
for they are spiritually discerned;" "The mind of the 
flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the 
law of God, neither indeed can be; and they that are 
in the flesh cannot please God;" "And ye, when ye 
were dead in trespasses and sins . . . but God, being 
rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved 
us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, 
made us alive together with Christ;" "And you, being 
dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of 
your flesh," etc. ; "For I know that in me, that is, in 
my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present 



that Luther was not very much afraid of using apparently 
synergistic expressions, for he says : "Let every man sweep 
before his own door; then we will all be saved; then it will 
not require much brooding on what God has determined in His 
counsel, as to who shall and who shall not be saved." (Tressel's 
work, page 219). 



The Heart of the Question 43 

with me, but to do that which is good is not ;" "By nature 
the children of wrath;" "For the flesh lusteth against 
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these 
are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do 
the things that ye would ;" "Behold, I was brought forth 
in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" 
(Ps. 51:5) ; "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the 
leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good who are 
accustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23). Many more texts 
might be cited. Those that have been given are, we 
believe, quoted in their true contextual relation, and mean 
just what the words say.* 

Thus the Bible teaches that a fatal moral disability 
lies upon man's spiritual powers. In a spiritual sense 
man is said to be "blind," "in darkness," "carnally 
minded," "conceived in sin," "dead in sin," "in the gall 
of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity," "the slave of 
sin." Man certainly is by nature in a sad state. How, 
then, can man be saved through faith when he has by 
nature not even a moiety of ability to exercise saving 
faith ? "Dead in trespasses and sins" — how can a "dead" 
man believe on Christ and accept His gift of salvation? 
We are trying to state the difficulty just as strongly as 
we can; and it is a difficulty that the Bible itself makes. 

Moreover, the difficulty is made still greater by the 
fact that, wherever in the Bible the offer of grace is 
made to man, he is not treated as if he were a dead 
man, but as if he were a living one, and even a free and 
responsible moral agent. Note that Christ began to 
preach to unregenerate men by saying, "Repent ye, and 



*Pelagianism also obliterates the distinction between nature 
and grace, and for that reason, too, we reject it. 



44 Election and Conversion 

believe the gospel." Why command them to do what 
they were utterly unable to do? Nicodemus was an un- 
regenerate man; yet Christ talked to him about the new 
birth, told him not to marvel about it, then went on to 
tell him about God so loving the world that He gave 
His only begotten Son that men might believe on Him 
and be saved. What incongruity to talk to a "dead" 
man about faith and the new birth! The woman at 
the well was still an unregenerate person when Christ 
told her about the water of life. In His last commission 
to His apostles our Lord bade them preach to unre- 
generate men, and, strangely enough, added that those 
who would believe their message would be saved; those 
who rejected it would be condemned. The frightened 
Philippian jailer was an unregenerate man when he 
cried out for help; yet Paul said to him, "Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Why 
bid a man believe when he couldn't? 

So we might go through the whole New Testament. 
But the same method obtains in the Old Testament. 
Isaiah was preaching to rank sinners when he said : 
"Come now, saith the Lord, and let us reason together; 
though your sins be as scarlet," etc. The idea of God's 
proposing to reason with such crass, deep-dyed sinners 
in their unconverted state! The idea of asking "dead" 
people to reason ! and to reason with Him, the all-wise 
and eternal God! The invitation, "Ho, every one that 
thirsteth, come ye to the waters," was extended to uncon- 
verted people. To the same unconverted lot of people 
God said through the prophet (Isa. 55 : 6,7) : "Seek ye 
the Lord while He may be found; call ye upon Him 
while He is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and 



The Heart of the Question 45 

the unrighteous man his thoughts ; and let him return 
unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and 
to our God, for He will abundantly pardon." 

Is this another unsoluble mystery? If so, it is not a 
mystery, this time, of God's sovereign decrees in eternity, 
but a mystery of conversion, faith, grace and freedom 
right here before our eyes every day. So we need not 
go back to eternity to find mysteries. But is it really 
a mystery, or only a difficulty of human speculation? 
The plain man, if a Christian, accepts all these varied 
and seemingly diverse statements of the Bible, and never 
thinks of them as being contradictory. Why? Because 
he thinks practically, and the Bible is a practical book, 
and expresses itself in a practical way. But when we 
get to prying and speculating, we at once get into con- 
fusion, especially if we do not hold all the facts in mind. 

Let us restate the difficulty in a simple and concise 
way, so that our proposition may stand out clear-cut be- 
fore our thought: On the one hand, the Bible plainly 
teaches that the unconverted man is dead in sin, totally 
unable to believe on Christ; on the other hand, it com- 
mands, urges and entreats him, while still unconverted, 
to believe on Christ, and threatens him with dire punish- 
ment if he refuses. Shall we stop here, throw up our 
hands, and call it an inscrutable mystery, as the Synodi- 
cal Conference brethren do relative to election, and thus 
represent the Bible as a bundle of contradictions, and so 
put a club into the hands of the skeptics and scoffers? 
Or shall we think more acutely and exaltedly, and see 
whether we will not find the Bible throughout to be a 
book of wondrous beauty, of perfect harmony, of organic 
unity? We shall try to pursue the latter pathway; it 



46 Election and Conversion 

will not be easy, not so easy, perhaps, as the other way 
would be, but we hope and pray that it may be worth 
while. We think we shall be able to steer clear of the 
Scylla of Pelagianism and Synergism, on the one hand, 
and of the Charybdis of unconditional election, on the 
other ; but shall uphold and magnify the blessed, holy and 
comforting doctrines of justification by faith alone and 
salvation by grace alone, which are the cardinal and cor- 
relating doctrines of the Lutheran Church. Let us walk 
slowly and think patiently. 

First, then, the unconverted sinner is "dead in tres- 
passes and sins." We take the strongest Biblical state- 
ment of his condition. Being spiritually dead, he can 
do nothing toward his salvation ; can originate no 
spiritual motions. But worse yet: though spiritually 
dead, he is carnally very much alive, and so is violently 
opposed to God. Yes, the "dead" sinner is full of ethical 
and spiritual contradictions, just as a vile sinner would 
naturally be; just as Paul describes the woman who 
follows sinful pleasure as being "dead while she liveth" 
(1 Tim. 5:6). Dead as to spiritual things, alive as to 
carnal things. 

But now is this terrible and paradoxical condition 
to continue always, waxing worse and worse? Is there 
no eye to pity? no arm to save? "Is there no balm in 
Gilead ? Is there no physician there ?" Does God know ? 
Does He care ? Does He pity ? Will He intervene ? Yes, 
we know He will; we know He has. He says as Jesus 
did : "I have compassion on the multitude ;" "And He 
had compassion on them, because they were as sheep 
not having a shepherd ; and He began to teach them." 
"God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten 



The Heart of the Question 47 

Son;" "The Son of man came to seek and to save that 
which was lost." This must have been His eternal pur- 
pose, but it was entirely a gracious one, and in nowise 
arbitrary. Now, having devised and perfected a merciful 
and gracious plan of redemption through Jesus Christ, 
what does God do to and for those sinners who are so 
dead to spiritual things and so alive to carnal things ? 

He sends His Holy Spirit to apply the redemption 
through the holy means of grace. And what is the 
Spirit's initial movement in performing this function? 
He calls sinners ; through the Word He calls them to 
repentance. Thanks be to God for His gracious Voca- 
tion! What a clarion call it is! "Ho, every one that 
thirsteth ; come ye to the waters ;" "Repent ye, and be- 
lieve the gospel;" "Come unto me, all ye that labor and 
are heavy laden ;" "Him that cometh unto me I will in 
nowise cast out ;" "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come ; 
and he that heareth, let him say, Come; and he that is 
athirst, let him come; and whosoever will, let him take 
of the water of life freely." Hear the call ringing out 
clear and sweet, line upon line, precept upon precept. 

And here comes in our precious Lutheran doctrine 
of the Word of God as the means of grace, which the 
Holy Spirit always accompanies and through which He 
always operates. "My Word shall not return unto me 
void, but shall accomplish that which I please, and pros- 
per in the thing whereunto I have sent it" (Isa. 55:11). 
Now, what does the divine call through the law and 
the gospel do for the "dead" sinner? Nothing? Abso- 
lutely nothing? Does it leave him just as he was? To 
say that, would be to deny both the sincerity and the 
efficacy of the Spirit's Call. What does the heavenly 



48 Election and Conversion 

Call do for the "dead" sinner? It stirs him to wakeful- 
ness ; it brings him to a consciousness of his condition. 
That is its very purpose. Will not God accomplish His 
purpose? Is He going to call on dead men to wake up 
and accept salvation, and yet leave them utterly dead? 
We fear some men have theologized so much about re- 
generation, conversion and eternal election that they have 
overlooked and undervalued the importance, grace, 
power and efficacy of the divine Call, which, we main- 
tain, is just as vital a link or movement in the order of 
salvation as any other part; and it is a matter of pure 
grace, too, just as faith, justification and conversion are. 
Let us find an illustration in the life of Christ. He 
once stood before the grave of Lazarus, and simply 
called to the dead man, "Lazarus, come forth." What 
was the use of calling to a dead man? Why, Christ's 
call was accompanied with power, as His Word always 
is, and so Lazarus was awakened by it, and as soon as 
he was aroused, he began some kind of movement, not 
by virtue of any natural power he had, but solely by 
virtue of the power imparted to him by the call of Christ. 
So when God calls sinners to repentance and faith, He 
does not leave them just as they were, wrapped in the 
unconscious sleep of spiritual death. Is this mere 
speculation? It is the gospel. Hear Paul's way of 
proclaiming the gracious Call: "Awake, thou that 
sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine 
upon thee" (Eph. 5:14). Whatever the calls and invi- 
tations of God do or do not effect, they surely do not 
leave the "dead" sinner just as he was before, else they 
would be both idle and absurd. Some kind of movement 
is always effected by God's Word and Spirit. Let no 



The Heart of the Question 49 

one accuse us of saying that this movement is a natural 
movement, that is, a movement of the natural man; no, 
it is effected solely by the Spirit of God; therefore sola 
gratia is preserved, and all Synergism and human merit 
are excluded. The Call may have to be repeated many 
times before the dead sinner is fully aroused to his con- 
dition and need ; indeed, on account of his perversity, he 
may resist it for a time; yes, even throughout his whole 
life, and thus be finally lost; and that, as we shall show 
presently, entirely through his own fault. Here our illus- 
tration about the raising of Lazarus would be defective, 
because in his case the whole process was instantaneous, 
whereas what is known in the purely spiritual realm as 
"prevenient grace" operates gradually. 

But now we must consider another office of the 
Spirit in the order of salvation. Simultaneously with 
the Call, or straightway following it, no matter which, 
there goes another most gracious work of God — Illumi- 
nation. Thanks be to God for this wonderful function 
of His grace! The Call of God always carries light 
with it: "The entrance of thy words giveth light;" "I 
am the light of the world;" "This is the condemnation, 
that light is come into the world, and men love darkness 
rather than light;" "Whereby the Dayspring from on 
high shall visit us, to shine upon them that sit in dark- 
ness and the shadow of death; to guide our feet in the 
way of peace ;" "To open their eyes that they may turn 
from darkness to light;" "God hath shined into our 
hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory 
of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 

The Illumination comes by God's grace in two ways : 
First, by the law ; second, by the gospel : "Through the 



50 Election and Conversion 

law cometh the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20) ; through 
the gospel comes the knowledge of salvation from sin: 
"Christ hath brought life and immortality to light through 
the gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10). 

Again we ask whether the "dead" sinner is left in 
precisely the same condition after the Call and Illumi- 
nation as he was before? Surely not, else all these 
gracious movements of the Holy Spirit would be idle 
and vain. He must now have some knowledge of his 
lost and ruined condition; also some knowledge of the 
way of salvation through Christ; therefore some sense 
of guilt, of responsibility, of freedom, of power to relate 
himself to God's proffer of salvation. And is not "pre- 
venient grace" grace just as well as converting grace ? Is it 
not just as pure, simple, powerful and precious? Dr. 
Jacobs very properly devotes two long chapters to 
Vocation and Illumination in his excellent work, "A 
Summary of the Christian Faith." He attributes both 
to the pure grace and mercy of God, just as he does 
Justification, Regeneration and Conversion.* 



*An enigma to us has been how Dr. Pieper could entirely 
ignore such a masterly presentation as that of Dr. Jacobs in 
the work already adverted to, "A Summary of Christian Faith." 
Dr. Jacobs' book bears copyright date, 1905, while Dr. Pieper 
wrote in 1913 ; yet Dr. Pieper writes as if Dr. Jacobs had never 
written a line on the subject of the divine purpose. Had he 
read and studied his compeer in theology, we doubt whether 
he would have written with so much assurance. Here is another 
puzzle : How could he charge the advocates of intuitu fidei 
with Synergism, Pelagianism, work-righteousness and human 
merit, in view of Dr. Jacobs' most complete and almost classical 
chapter, in which he repudiates all these errors, and advocates 
salvation solely on account of the merit of Jesus Christ? All 
who want to read both sides of the question are referred to 
Dr. Jacobs' work. It is no less a puzzle to us that Dr. Pieper 
could repeat his charge of Synergism and Pelagianism against 



The Heart of the Question 51 

Even Dr. Pieper gives a somewhat lengthy chapter 
to the "preparation for conversion," the "acts prepara- 
tory" {actus praeparatorii) ; but he is so wrapped up in 
his peculiar view of election and conversion that he 
treats these functions of the Spirit grudgingly, lamely, 
as if they were practically ineffective, almost negligible 
factors in the process of conversion. He and others 
even compare the ntotus effected by preparatory grace 
on the sinner's soul to the indentations made on a 
rubber ball by some external impact: the indentations 
made, the rubber immediately springs back to its original 
form. Is not that a mechanical and materialistic way of 
looking upon the acts and effects of the Holy Ghost? 
What is the use of preparatory acts at all, then, if they 
create no feeling of responsibility, and effect no ability 
whatever for the sinner to relate himself to the gracious 
overtures of salvation? That view makes conversion 
a purely mechanical thing; it makes God force salvation 
on some people, while it leaves others to their awful 
fate. The Bible never represents salvation that way, 
never! See how well-balanced and all-sided Paul is: 
"The wages of sin is is death; but the gift of God is 
eternal life." And a "gift" must be accepted, and 

his opponents, in view of the hundreds of denials and dis- 
claimers made by them in Tressel's great work, "The Error of 
Missouri," containing the arguments of Drs. Stellhorn and 
Schmidt and Revs. Allwardt and Ernst. These theologians, 
while they uphold the doctrine of intuitu fidei, also uphold sola 
gratia just as stoutly and uncompromisingly as does Dr. Pieper 
himself. To our mind, they have performed their task with 
invincible logic and on a sound Biblical and confessional basis. 
Of course, this commendation does not mean to include an 
endorsement of the drastic expressions they sometimes used 
in the heat of controversy. But these can easily be separated 
from the masterly arguments of these brethren. 



52 Election and Conversion 

accepted freely, or it is not a gift. Something that is 
forced upon you is not a gift. We must, therefore, 
differ from Missouri's position, because its teachings 
slight and minify God's gracious work in the prepara- 
tory movements leading to conversion. 

In conformity with the Bible, we have excellent 
Lutheran authority for this view. We quote an admir- 
able paragraph from Dr. Jacobs' work, ut supra, page 
229: 

"How is it (Regeneration) related to Illumination? 
By illumination man is brought to see his lost condition 
and to learn of the provision made in Christ for his 
salvation. This act, as it progresses, includes a certain 
disposition of the will toward the offered grace. Regen- 
eration occurs when the act of self-surrender to God's 
will and promise is accomplished by the inner workings 
of the Holy Spirit in Word or Sacrament. Illumination 
influences the will, but it belongs to regeneration to de- 
termine the decision." 

Admirable, for it honors God's grace and power 
in the prevenient operations of His Spirit, and makes 
room for some real effect upon the will of the unsaved 
sinner. It also makes conversion an ethical and spiritual 
movement, not a mechanical and coerced one. 

Even Dr. A. L. Graebner, in his "Outlines of Doc- 
trinal Theology" (a work that we esteem very highly, 
and use for reference in the class-room), was almost 
forced to veer over to this view (stalwart Missourian 
though he was), when he came to the locus, "Conversion 
and Preparatory Operations" : "Regeneration, or Con- 
version in the stricter sense, being essentially the pro- 
creation of the true and saving faith, is an instantaneous 



The Heart of the Question 53 

act or process, but is in adults preceded by preparatory 
operations, whereby the sinner is convicted of his sinful 
state and helpless condition under divine wrath by means 
of the Law, and led to a logical or historical under- 
standing of the contents of the Gospel, and which, with 
the outer use of the means of grace, in a measure, lie 
within the power and reach of the irregenerate man." 

Altogether admirable, and true as well; but it is 
not in accord with Missouri's position; for if "the con- 
tents of the Gospel," "in a measure lie within the power 
and reach of the irregenerate man," then preparatory 
grace must have done something in that unregenerate 
man's will, so that he has the "power" in some way to 
let himself be disposed to the offer of salvation. If he 
has a certain "power and reach" in spiritual matters, he 
is not in quite the helpless condition he was before the 
Call and Illumination came, for then he was wholly 
"dead;" now he has a kind of "power and reach." 
Therefore he is responsible for the proper use of the 
"power and reach" that God's Spirit has conferred upon 
him. If he uses that conferred "power and reach" ac- 
cording to God's will and pre-ordained plan, he will be 
saved ; if he refuses, he will be lost. Why must we go 
back, then, to God's eternal election to find a mystery as 
to why some men are saved and others lost, when we 
have the reason given right here before our eyes, proved 
by a Missouri Lutheran himself, and that by numerous 
quotations from the Bible? Why make a mystery of it 
when the Bible tells us just why the elect are justified 
and the others condemned ? 

While we are dealing with this interesting subject, 
we wish to show how a Concordia theologian of blessed 



54 Election and Conversion 

memory involved himself in contradiction, just because, 
instead of taking justification by faith as the determin- 
ing principle, he looked at every thing through the eye- 
glass of election. On page 172 of his "Doctrinal 
Theology" Dr. Graebner defines Vocation. See how 
admirable his statement is : "Vocation is the act of God 
by which He, through the means of grace, earnestly 
offers to all who hear or read the Gospel, or to whom the 
sacraments are administered, the benefits of Christ's re- 
demption, truly and earnestly invites and exhorts them 
to accept and enjoy what is thus offered, and endeavors 
to move and lead them by the power inherent in the 
means of grace to such acceptance and enjoyment of 
the benefits of the redemption." 

Could anything be more clearly stated ? Here is the 
total rejection of the Calvinistic doctrine of divine elec- 
tion to pretention and reprobation, and of the "will of 
the sign" over against the "will of the purpose." But now 
let us turn over to page 175, where our author defines the 
"effects of the call" : "By the divine power residing in 
the means of grace, and working through the same, the 
calling grace of God effects regeneration or conversion. 
Where these effects are not attained, this is due to obsti- 
nate resistance on the part of man." 

Note the contradiction: In the first paragraph 
quoted, the Call is simply the earnest "offer" of salva- 
tion; in the second paragraph it actually "effects regen- 
eration or conversion." That must be a curious act of 
the Holy Spirit that both offers a boon and forcibly 
bestows it. An offer is something to be accepted or 
rejected; when you accept it, you have it; if you reject 
it, you cannot have it. If, on the one hand, we cannot 



The Heart of the Question 55 

accept the offer (referring to the saved), and, on the 
other, we cannot help but reject it (the lost), then how 
could the offer have been made sincerely and earnestly? 
Moreover, if man has no freedom whatever to accept 
the offered grace, then, if it does come to him, it must 
have been forced upon him, nolens volens; which is con- 
trary to all Scriptural representation and all experience 
in conversion. 

True, our Missouri brethren will reply : "We have 
said again and again that this is the mystery of election ; 
we do not try to solve it; we leave it with the eternal 
counsels of the Almighty to be revealed in the next life." 
But why should we, in our theologizing, make the Bible 
a book of contradictions and inconsistencies by a method 
of setting proof-text over against proof-text? Why not 
study it more deeply, and see whether we cannot co- 
ordinate its teachings and find their inner harmony? 
Surely if God is the altogether excellent One, He must 
be harmonious in His own being, and when He gives 
His children a revelation, it surely cannot be so full of 
contradictions as to turn them into infidels. We believe 
in "the divine unity of the Scriptures." By collating 
Scripture with Scripture, we can, more and more, find 
the beautiful and higher harmony of its teachings. We 
like Dr. Jacobs' view-point here (page 9, ut supra); he 
defines the proper hermeneutical principle as being an 
observance of "the organic relation of the various parts 
of Holy Scripture to one another." True, we confess 
to some doubt about what is known as the doctrine of 
"the analogy of faith," for it seems to set up a human 
standard of interpretation outside of the Bible, while 
we believe in taking the Bible teaching just as it stands. 



56 Election and Conversion 

But then every text ought to be interpreted in its true 
contextual setting and according to the meaning of the 
writer, with due attention to the correct exegesis. Mere 
phrases and brief sentences should not be treated in an 
insolated way, nor wrenched from their context, nor 
interpreted merely according to the sound of the words, 
when the real sense may be something quite different. 
You cannot truly and fairly interpret any writing in 
that way — that is, by simply quoting a detached sentence 
here and there; for sometimes a preceding or succeed- 
ing statement of the author may qualify the quoted 
statement. Take, for instance, 1 Cor. 2 :9. Suppose a 
dogmatician should try to formulate from that passage 
the doctrine that the glories of heaven are far beyond 
human conception and imagination, because Paul says: 
"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," etc. The true inter- 
preter of Scripture would simply tell him to read the 
next verse, when he would see that Paul was not re- 
ferring to heaven at all, but to the revelations Christians 
now have through the Spirit of God. We shall have 
occasion more than once, in succeeding chapters, to show 
how our Concordia brethren miss the mark in drawing 
their peculiar doctrines from the Scriptures by a too 
infinitesimal treatment of the Bible. 

Again, if there are certain passages of Scripture 
that are difficult and seemingly obscure, we ought not 
to seize upon them as the norm of doctrine, and try to 
regulate and gauge everything by them, but should take 
the plain and clear passages as our guide to lead us 
into the others, which may by and by, through prayer, 
study and the leading of the Spirit, also become explicit. 
And if there are apparent contradictions, we ought not 



The Heart of the Question 57 

to stop praying and studying, and decide hastily that 
the contradictions are in the Bible. We would better go 
on the principle that, as God is a unity in Himself, and 
there can be no inconsistencies in His being and char- 
acter, so His revelation must be consistent with itself. 
Would it not be irreverent to think or say that one part 
of Scripture contradicts another? or that God has said 
one thing in one place and a different thing in another? 
To our mind, it would be more humble and reverent to 
think that God would not contradict Himself, and that, 
therefore, if we are patient and prayerful, we will pres- 
ently discover the sacred harmony that pervades His 
entire revelation. A good rule is to compare Scripture 
with Scripture. Perhaps that is what Paul means when 
he says, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," for 
the Bible is a spiritual book. 

If we wished to be so unkind, we might drive the 
Missouri advocates into a logical cul-de-sac by their own 
piecemeal method of handling the Scriptures. They 
stoutly disclaim teaching and holding the Calvinistic 
doctrine of eternal election to reprobation; sinners are 
not elected to be condemned, but are condemned solely 
on account of their own fault. Now read 1 Pet. 2:8: 
"A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense; for they 
stumble at the Word, being disobedient; whereunto also 
they were appointed." Take that passage by itself, as 
the Missourians take the election passages, and it 
teaches the baldest Calvinistic doctrine — namely, that 
God "appointed" the "disobedient" to "stumble at the 
Word," and even to be "disobedient." And, according 
to the Missouri view, you would not dare to "interpret" 
this passage, nor explain it by any other. And so here 



58 Election and Conversion 

would be another insoluble mystery — namely, that, in one 
place, the Bible teaches that sinners are condemned on 
account of their own fault, and, in another, that they 
are "appointed" to stumble into condemnation. How 
many mysteries you could create in that way! But 
take the better way of interpreting Scripture, and all is 
clear. By reading the context, especially verses 6 and 7, 
you will see who the people are that stumble at Christ 
and his Word — those who "disbelieve." And, of course, 
people who reject Christ are "appointed" to stumble over 
many things in God's Word. We have seen them stumble 
over the most simple and precious doctrines. Such is 
God's inevitable law — that spiritual blindness comes upon 
people who reject His Word and His offer of salvation. 
After writing the foregoing, we read over again Dr. 
J. L. Neve's graphic report of the Missouri-Ohio-Iowa 
free conferences at Milwaukee and Detroit in 1903-4. It 
would appear that they spent a large part of their time 
in wrestling over methods of Biblical interpretation. 
Missouri was against the doctrine of the "Analogy of 
Faith;" the others for it. We have no time to amplify 
on this matter now. For our part, we do not hold up 
any objective rule by which to interpret Scripture, nor 
do we feel obliged to "harmonize" the various parts of 
the Bible ; we believe they do not need to be harmonized ; 
they need simply to be understood, and then they will be 
seen to be harmonious. If God is a unity, His revelation 
will be like Himself. Therefore our simple hermeneutical 
rule is to take each passage according to its natural and 
literal meaning in connection with the context, always 
reading enough to be sure of the author's main proposi- 
tion. By applying this simple rule — it is the rule of all 



The Heart of the Question 59 

true literary exposition — we do not find one passage of 
Scripture teaching one thing, and another something else. 
Of course, no brief Scripture verse teaches all the doc- 
trines of redemption. John 3:16, though called the 
"gospel in nuce" says nothing about vicarious atonement 
or the resurrection. You must go to other parts of the 
Bible to find those doctrines. But all portions of the 
Scripture are complementary. One of the strongest 
evidences of the divine authority and inspiration of the 
Bible is its organic unity. 

According to the Bible, the way of salvation is so 
plain that "the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not 
err therein." It is not likely, therefore, that God, in re- 
vealing that way in His Word, would set it forth in a 
self-contradictory manner. Let us give a few examples of 
how text may be set up against text by the piecemeal 
method. In John 14:27 Christ said: "Peace I leave 
with you; my peace I give unto you." The angels over 
Bethlehem's plains sang (Matt. 2:14) : "Glory to God 
in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men" 
(old version). But in Matt. 10:34 Christ said the 
opposite: "Think not that I am come to send peace on 
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." The 
Concordia Lutherans do not throw up their hands and 
say : "Here is a plain contradiction, and therefore an in- 
explicable mystery, which we must simply accept, but 
must not try to harmonize." No ; they know that the in- 
terpretation is very simple — that to the sinner in his sins 
the Word of God is a sword, while to the true believer it 
imparts peace. Take another instance. John 16:7: 
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is expedient for 
you that I go away ; for if I go not away the Comforter 



60 Election and Conversion 

will not come." Set over against it Matt. 28 :20 : "And 
lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
world." Do the Missouri expositors say this is another 
contradiction, an insoluble mystery? No; they simply 
interpret the two passages in the larger light of the 
ascension, glorification, transcendence and consequent 
immanence of Christ's human nature — that is, by means 
of the glorious Lutheran doctrine of the communicatio 
idiomatum, just as the Formula of Concord does in 
Chapter VIII of the Epitome and Solid Declaration. 

Thus we must compare Scripture with Scripture in 
the investigation of other doctrines in order to get the 
whole truth. The same interpretative rule should hold 
with reference to election and conversion. 



VI 
REGENERATION WORKING FAITH 

HAVING seen that Vocation and Illumination, being 
the work of the Holy Spirit whereby He produces 
awakening, enlightenment, knowledge of sin and the way 
of salvation, and also effects a certain enablement of 
the will, thus making the sinner a responsible agent re- 
specting his personal salvation, we shall next treat of 
regeneration and faith and their relations to each other. 
For we have not yet arrived at these movements in our 
analysis of the Order of Grace. No; the called and 
awakened sinner cannot yet believe. He simply has a 
knowledge of sin and of the way of salvation through 
Christ. He says : "I cannot believe ; the more I try 
the more I fail." More than once he adds Paul's plain- 
tive cry : "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver 
me from the body of this death ?" Yes ; he realizes that 
his ethical corruption and spiritual disability are still 
lying like a corpse in his soul. So far as self-help is 
concerned, he feels more keenly than ever that he is "dead 
in sin." What can he do? The electionist says, "Nothing, 
absolutely nothing !" Then what was the use of the Voca- 
tion and Illumination ? But he can do something, for God 
by His prevenient grace has given him the ability: he 
can pray ; very lamely and haltingly, it is true ; still, with 
all his doubt and despair, he can pray. That is what 
Paul did on his way to Damascus : "Lord, what wilt 
thou have me to do?" and after he reached Damascus: 



62 Election and Conversion 

"Behold, he prayeth." That is what the sin-stricken 
Publican did : "God be merciful to me a sinner." That 
is what Peter did, when sinking in the waves : "Lord, 
save me or I perish." So the pentitent thief : "Lord, 
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Our 
Lord said : "Men ought always to pray and not to faint." 
In Dr. Pieper's book of 151 pages, discussing con- 
version and election with great labor and learning, there 
is not a word said about the sinner praying for mercy 
and pardon. Perhaps the election advocates think that 
the unconverted sinner cannot pray. If so, that is merely 
an academic theory; it contradicts the experience of 
millions of Christians, who prayed before they were con- 
verted and for conversion, even though they could only 
say with one of old : "Lord, I believe ; help thou mine 
unbelief." Indeed, we have wondered much why the 
Concordia dogmaticians give no place to prayer in the 
acts preparatory to conversion. The Bible so often 
represents the unregenerate as praying for pardon and 
salvation. (See the instances cited above.) Might this 
slighting of prayer be due to the fact that the dogma- 
ticians have had little experience in winning adult sin- 
ners to Christ? The writer of this book was a pastor 
for many years, and has had much experience in direct- 
ing adult sinners of all kinds and classes in the way of 
salvation. He has never known an adult conversion to 
occur without prayer. More than one despondent in- 
quirer has said, "I can't believe!" We have replied: 
"I know you cannot in your own strength; but you can 
pray for faith; and God will remove your doubt and 
give you the power to believe." In every case, so far 
as we can remember, faith was bestowed in God's good 



Regeneration Working Faith 63 

time. If Jacob wrestled all night with the angel for a 
blessing, should not the awakened sinner also pray 
for salvation? Indeed, this is one of God's great pur- 
poses in the preparatory acts — namely, to bring the 
sinner to his knees in humble confession and supplica- 
tion. (It should be remembered that we are here speak- 
ing only of the conversion or regeneration of adults, 
not of regeneration in child baptism.) 

Now, if the sinner will pray to God for help, God 
will, through added prevenient grace, enable him freely 
to cease his resistance, freely to surrender himself to 
God alone ; yes, even to cease trying to save himself, and 
simply let God, and God alone, save him. 

Having led him thus far, so that he utterly despairs 
of self-help, and gives himself up entirely to God, God 
flies to his rescue, breathes into his soul the new 
spiritual life, which is regeneration, in and by which the 
ability of faith is conferred upon him; then, by this 
divinely enabled faith, he lays hold upon Christ as His 
Saviour and Redeemer; and this exercise of faith, a 
power given purely by grace, brings justification and 
all the salutary blessings which accrue therefrom. Re- 
generation or conversion also effects the mystical 
union (unio mystica) between the sinner and Christ, 
and thus sets him on the way of progressive sanctification. 
The whole process is vital, ethical and spiritual; at no 
point merely mechanical; at no moment is the sinner 
coerced. In reviewing his experience, he knows that all 
the way he was drawn, not by force, but by the cords 
of love. The whole transaction was the work of God's 
grace. What freedom he had and used was not active and 
co-operating, but only consenting freedom; and even the 
ability to consent was bestowed by prevenient grace. 



64 Election and Conversion 

But how about those who are not saved ? With our 
Missouri brethren, we say that they are lost solely be- 
cause they stubbornly resisted the Holy Ghost and 
rejected the overtures of mercy. But we go this much 
further than Missouri; we add, they had their chance, 
line upon line, but they did not improve it. Through 
God's call and gracious invitation and oft-repeated 
proffer of salvation, they knew well enough that God 
would gladly give them faith, conversion and salvation 
if they would let Him; but they would not allow Him 
to save them. They were able to reject God by their 
own sinful choice; but God also told them through the 
gospel that He would make them free from the bondage 
of sin, if they would surrender to Him. Can any one 
living in a gospel land deny this? Just hear Christ's 
words : "The Son of man came to seek and to save 
that which was lost;" "If the Son shall make you free, 
ye shall be free indeed;" "He hath sent me to proclaim 
deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the 
blind, and to set at liberty them that are bruised, to 
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Why, that 
is precisely why Christ came : "Thou shalt call His 
name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their 
sins." So all may be enabled if they will. If some 
choose the bondage of sin, when deliverance is so freely 
and urgently offered, with ability to accept the offer, 
we know not what God could do for them and with them 
but leave them to their own devices. If others, recog- 
nizing through the gospel call their lost condition and 
utter inability, are willing to let Christ emancipate them, 
they will be saved. God desires to enable all to accept 
deliverance, but He can save only those who, after He 



Regeneration Working Faith 65 

has aroused them by His call and pointed them to the 
Saviour, are willing to let Him rescue and enable them. 
To our mind, this is the gracious order of the Spirit's 
application of redemption (which has already been 
wrought out by Christ's active and passive obedience) : 
Prevenient grace gives all a chance, and therefore locates 
the responsibility; regenerating grace bestows the new 
life and enables saving faith; faith accepts justification, 
by which all Christ's merits are imputed to the believer, 
which is the sole ground of his salvation ; progressive 
sanctification develops and unfolds the inherent right- 
eousness enabled by regeneration or conversion. It is all 
of grace — sola gratia. The work of sanctification, even, 
where Missouri and all the rest of us say that the believ- 
er's emancipated will co-operates with God's will, is all of 
grace, just as the work of prevenient enduement is all 
of grace. There is not one particle of human merit in 
the whole process from Vocation to Glory. Even the 
saints in heaven do not praise themselves or boast of 
any merit, but give all the glory to "Him that sitteth 
upon the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever" 
(Rev. 5:13). 

We are wondering now whether any of our brethren 
will try to find some "cryptic synergism" here, because 
we assign some degree of enabling power to grace prior 
to conversion. If so, we shall have to deny the allegation. 
What we understand by Synergism is this, that man by 
his natural powers is able to concur with God's grace. 
This idea we repudiate with all our might. So far as 
regards spiritual energies, true righteousness toward God, 
and ability to believe on a spiritual Redeemer, the un- 
saved sinner is "dead in trespasses and sins." How can 



66 Election and Conversion 

a dead man do anything? How can a man who is 
spiritually dead do anything spiritual? Even if the 
Bible did not teach it plainly, it would still be psychically 
impossible for an unspiritual mind to perform spiritual 
functions. Moreover, a soul that is in the bondage of 
sin and corruption cannot act as if it were free. The 
fact is, if man could, by his natural ability, do anything 
truly and spiritually good without Christ, he might do 
everything that is spiritually good without Him, for then 
he might simply develop the spiritual powers within him. 
No, so far as doing anything spiritual and truly righteous 
before God is concerned, man, in his state of natural 
depravity, is utterly unable. And, mark you, no man 
is ever commanded to believe on Christ until he is called 
through the gospel, just as Paul says : "How shall they 
believe on Him of whom they have not heard? And 
how shall they hear without a preacher? ... So faith 
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ." 
Christ's teaching is just the same (John 15:22): "If 
I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had 
sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin." Also 
Paul again (Rom. 4:15) : "For the law worketh wrath; 
but where there is no law, neither is there transgression." 
It is all very simple and plain and reasonable, if we just 
accept the clear Bible statements. In a state of nature, 
therefore, man has no spiritual ability; but so soon as 
the gospel Call and Illumination reach him, he has been 
touched by a spiritual power, and is not quite the same 
as before. 

After God has prepared redemption through Christ, 
after He awakens and illumines sinners, and after He 
graciously offers them the salvation thus provided, then, 



Regeneration Working Faith 67 

and then only, is their own choice decisive; but it is de- 
cisive then, for at that point their free moral agency 
respecting the gracious overture comes into play. If 
this is not true, we repeat again that the grace bestowed 
in conversion must be "irresistible grace," and that is 
Calvinism, not Lutheranism. Moreover, there is not one 
passage of Scripture that teaches that grace is irresistibly 
bestowed. Indeed, if it were, it would not be grace, 
whatever else it might be called. 

There is still another point in the process of Voca- 
tion, Illumination and Conversion that requires elucida- 
tion : How is it that the sinner can, on the one hand, 
resist God's Spirit, while, on the other, he cannot do 
anything to save himself? How can he be free if he 
cannot act both ways, if he has not the power of alternate 
choice ? Let us use an illustration. Suppose a man who 
is utterly unable to swim should fall into a deep lake. 
He is "dead," so far as swimming is concerned. At 
once a man in a canoe, near at hand, hurries to his rescue, 
Now, while the man would be utterly unable to save 
himself, he still might resist his would-be rescuer, might 
fight him away, might prefer to drown. The unhappy 
man might do another thing; he might struggle, and 
fling his arms, and try to save himself, and thus inter- 
fere with his deliverer, and make it impossible for him 
to save him. But his benefactor might speak to him, 
plead with him to let himself be saved, instruct him not 
to struggle or try at all to save himself, but simply to leave 
himself quiescent in his hands ; thus by and by the des- 
perate man might be so soothed as to cease all efforts 
of his own, and surrender himself entirely into the hands 
of his rescuer. If he did, he would be saved ; if he did 



68 Election and Conversion 

not, he would be lost. This is a parable, but its meaning 
lies on the surface ; it needs no interpretation.* 

We shall humbly do our best to illumine another 
matter. Every Bible student, whether a theologian or not, 
must realize that spiritual death is not in all respects 
like physical death. In the spiritual realm the word 
"death" means the most corrupt and undone condition 
possible in that sphere. When a material body is dead, 
it is unconscious, but when a soul is dead to spiritual 
realities, it is not dead like that; it is not unconscious. 
Theologians usually distinguish three kinds of death — 
temporal, spiritual and eternal. The sinner is in some 
respects very conscious and very much alive, though 
dead in other ways. Those who go down to eternal 
death — called in Scripture the "second death" — are 
neither unconscious nor quiescent, but recognize their 
doom, and suffer its pangs. The apostle Paul indicates 
this truth in the passage so often quoted by all of us who 
believe in total depravity (Eph. 2:1-3). We give the 
passage according to what we think the clearest transla- 
tion: "And you were dead (nekrous) in (or as to) 
your trespasses and sins, in which ye once walked 
(Greek, periepatesate, walked or trod about) according 
to the ways of this world, according to the prince of 
the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in 



* Another apt comparison might be that of a man in fetters 
in the dungeon of a prison. When his deliverer comes to 
announce pardon and release, the prisoner could not unlock 
his prison door, or remove his chains, or even do a thing to 
effect his own liberation; but he might resist, fight, refuse to 
be forgiven and freed. His deliverer might overcome his 
obstinacy by persuasion, so that by and by he would be will- 
ing to let his benefactor set him free. So with the sinner. 



Regeneration Working Faith 69 

the sons of disobedience; among whom we also once 
lived in the lusts of our flesh," etc. You will observe 
that those "dead" people "walked about" and "lived," 
even while they were dead. So Paul says in 1 Tim. 5:6: 
"But she that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while 
she liveth." 

Then what is the meaning of "dead in sin ?" This : 
the spiritual powers of the soul have become atrophied, 
paralyzed, or deadened by sin, while the other psychical 
powers retain their abililty to function, though of course 
all of them are sadly affected. When man sinned in 
the garden of Eden, he lost his original righteousness, 
his spiritual quality, his faith and love in and for God, 
and became alienated from Him; but we know from 
the Bible itself that he did not lose his personality, his 
mental powers, his self-consciousness, his freedom in 
earthly affairs, his psychical emotion, nor even his con- 
science entirely. Moreover, he still retained his sight, 
hearing, and other senses. All these were permitted to 
remain through the intervening mercy of God, for He 
might justly have permitted man to be wholly destroyed. 
Strangely enough, Adam, though spiritually dead, was 
still, by virtue of his remaining psychical powers, even 
conscious that he had sinned, for he was ashamed, hid 
from God, and was afraid to meet Him. When God 
called him, he could hear the divine voice, could under- 
stand the words, and could make reply. However, he 
showed the depth of the infamy into which he had 
fallen — that is, his spiritual death-stroke — by refusing 
to repent and plead for pardon, but, on the contrary, 
even tried to justify himself by putting the blame upon 
the woman; while she, being in the same spiritual con- 



70 Election and Conversion 

dition, tried to fix the blame upon the serpent. They 
were both dead and alive, those two, and their posterity- 
has ever since inherited the same abnormal and para- 
doxical nature. 

What, then, is this living death of the unconverted 
sinner? It is that deadened divine image that is within 
him ; it is those corrupted and paralyzed spiritual powers. 
It is as if he were bearing a corpse about with him 
in his soul. It casts its terrible blight upon all his 
psychical faculties, the intellect, the susceptibility, the 
will. Even in his natural state he must often be con- 
scious of the schism within, and of the dead weight he 
carries about; but he becomes poignantly conscious of 
his blight and burden when the call of God sounds in 
his ears, and the blazing light of the law reveals the 
hideous obliquity of his being. It is at this point that 
Paul exclaims in his despair: "Oh, wretched man that 
1 am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death?" No sooner does the sinner utter this cry for 
help than God sheds upon him the sweet, mellow radi- 
ance of the gospel, which reveals Christ to him as the 
only source of help; and so he again cries with Paul: 
"I thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 

But while the sinner has a natural will, so that he 
is capable of a kind of "civil righteousness" (Augsburg 
Confession, Art. 18; Apology, page 78), yet in the 
higher, the spiritual matters it avails nothing; it is 
utterly helpless. As the Augsburg Confession puts it 
(Art. 18) : "It has no power, without the Holy Ghost, 
to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual 
righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God; but this righteousness is 



Regeneration Working Faith 71 

wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 
through the Word." The Formula of Concord (page 
557, Jacob's edition) insists on the same truth: "The 
reason and free will have the power, to a certain extent, 
to live an outwardly decent life; but to be born anew, 
and to obtain inwardly another heart, sense and disposi- 
tion, this only the Holy Ghost effects. He opens the 
understanding and heart to understand the Scriptures, 
and to give heed to the Word, as it is written (Luke 
24:25) : 'Then opened He their understanding, that they 
might understand the Scriptures.' " 

Therefore, we maintain that, when the will has 
attained any power or disposition toward spiritual 
things by means of the Vocation and Illumination, such 
disposition or power is in nowise resident in the natural 
will, but pertains wholly and solely to the spiritual ability 
that has been imparted by the Holy Spirit. The natural 
will is corrupted by inherited depravity and actual sin, 
and therefore can neither choose nor initiate anything 
good, but is set against it. All these things must be 
true, for if man were not a willful sinner, he would not 
be a real sinner at all; and, on the other hand, if he 
could save himself, there would be no need of Christ 
and His gospel. And yet again, if God would convert 
him after the Call and Illumination without his consent, 
then God would force salvation upon him, and therefore 
it would not be an ethical and spiritual salvation, but a 
coerced and mechanical one, which would be no sal- 
vation at all, in the true sense of the term. Therefore, 
from the very nature of an ethical salvation, there must 
be an action of prevenient grace prior to conversion, 
which enables man in some way to exercise his will to 



72 Election and Conversion 

the extent that he is willing to be converted. This agrees 
with the Scriptures, as we have shown again and again, 
and it also agrees with our Christian experience; for 
every converted man knows that, on the one hand, he did 
not and could not convert himself, and, on the other, 
that God did not convert him against his will and with- 
out his consent. "Whosoever will, let him take of the 
water of life freely." Why not see in the Bible a beauti- 
ful consistency? It is not a book of real or seeming 
contradictions. Mysteries there are, and we gladly 
admit it; but no incongruities, no absurdities, nothing 
that shocks the spiritually enlightened and sanctified 
reason. 



VII 
SALIENT SCRIPTURE TEACHING 

LET us examine a few relevant passages of Scrip- 
ture to see how consistent and harmonious, how 
vitally organized, how divinely unified, the whole process 
of conversion is represented to be. First, take John 
7:17: "If any one (tis) willeth (thele, active, subjunc- 
tive) to do (poiein) His will (thelema, same root as that 
of thele), he shall know concerning the teaching, whether 
it is from God, or whether I speak from myself." This 
is a crucial passage. It would seem that our Lord was 
not so much afraid to mention the human will as some 
theologians are. Why? Because He was practical, took 
man as he is, and knew that it would detract nothing 
from God's honor and grace for Him to respect the will 
which He Himself had put into man's being and endued 
with its wonderful power of alternate choice. However, 
let us proceed to the analysis of this great passage. The 
following is Dr. A. Spaeth's exposition (Lutheran Com- 
mentary, in loco, page 101) : "And the evidence of the 
divine character and authority of His teaching is to be 
found by all those who honestly will to do the Father's 
will, wherever that will may be found, whether in the 
law, or in the prophets, or in the conscience of man. The 
moral character of Christianity is the testimony of its 
divine power and authority. It is the Old Testament 
principle: 'The fear of the Lord — the beginning of 
wisdom,' which is here by the Lord Himself applied to 



74 Election and Conversion 

the New Testament revelation of the Gospel. The heart, 
the conscience, the will of man are involved in his search 
after truth. Wherever there is an honest will, an up- 
right, sincere resolution, not the actual doing or per- 
fection in doing the will of God (which is impossible), 
men will be drawn to Christ ; they will appreciate the gift 
of God in the Gospel, having made an honest effort to 
do the will of God as they know it." 

This is quite admirable and true. Let us make the 
explication of the passage a little more germain to the 
present discussion, for of course Dr. Spaeth did not have 
the Missouri view of conversion in mind. "If any one 
willeth to do His will." Christ was here speaking to 
unconverted people, as the whole context shows. Yet 
He said, "If any one willeth." Would He have used such 
language if the people whom He was addressing had no 
volitional power whatever? We do not believe it is treat- 
ing Christ with due honor to make Him guilty of acting 
and speaking absurdly, just because we hold some par- 
ticularistic theory of conversion and election. But how 
about the "willing" of those unregenerate people? As 
Paul says, in the natural state they were "dead in tres- 
passes and sins." Is not this a glaring inconsistency? 
Not at all, but a beautiful organism. Why had Christ 
come into the world, and why was He speaking to those 
people just then? For the very purpose of waking them 
from their death-sleep. "The words that I speak unto 
you, they are spirit and they are life." His blessed 
words were not dead words. So He was trying to stir 
them into life by His preaching of the gospel to them. 
Did nothing stir within them? Did no enablement come 
to them while He "spake as never man spake?" What a 



Salient Scripture Teaching 75 

derogation of Christ's message that view would be ! No, 
He was stirring their wills into action by the spiritual 
power that accompanied His gracious words. Herein lies 
the gracious power of the Call. 

Now, note carefully: He does not say or mean to 
say that sinners can do God's will, but merely that they 
shall will or be willing. And what was God's will just 
at that critical juncture in the life of those Jews? 
According to the whole tenor of Biblical teaching, it 
simply was this: that they should be willing to let God 
save them through Christ. If they had been willing to do 
just that much — to let God even overcome the opposition 
of their sinful hearts and wills, He would have saved 
them, yes, saved them even from themselves; and then 
they would have known that Jesus was the Messiah of 
God, the Saviour of the world. Then He would have con- 
verted them; and then, afterward, as they continued to 
be willing to do God's will, they would have known 
more and more of His divine and gracious doctrine. 
"The path of the just shineth more and more unto the 
perfect day." There is not a gospel preacher on earth 
who, if he were speaking to unsaved men, would not 
say precisely the same thing to them. He would never 
begin by telling them of the divine decrees in eternity. 
He would never preach to them about their utter inability 
and consequent irresponsibility. How do our Missouri 
brethren preach to unconverted sinners? As if they 
were logs and stones, or as if they were men, capable of 
receiving, through God's enabling grace, an ethical 
salvation? God never works on man, a personality, in 
a mechanical way; always in a vital and ethical way. 
The fact is, man even in his sinful state, still has ears 



76 Election and Conversion 

and eyes and self-consciousness, through which God, by 
the gospel, is able to reach that dead spiritual corpse 
within him and bring it back to life. Therefore Christ 
said : "Take heed how ye hear and what ye hear." The 
act of imparting the new life, enabling faith, is regenera- 
tion or conversion ; the process of reaching man to make 
him conscious of his corruption and inability and to make 
him willing to be saved, is Vocation and Illumination. 
It is all of grace, but it is also ethical and spiritual, not 
material or mechanical. 

It is a pleasure to examine another crucial passage 
of the Word— Phil. 2:12, 13: "So then, my beloved, 
even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence 
only, but now much more in my absence, work out your 
own salvation with fear and trembling ; for it is God who 
worketh in you both to will and to work for His good 
pleasure." Twentieth Century New Testament, verse 
13 : "Remember it is God who, in His kindness, is at 
work within you, enabling you both to will and to work." 
How beautiful and ethical it all is ! True, these words 
were written to converted men, but we quote them to 
show that the same general principles apply to the work 
of sanctification that obtain in conversion, proving again 
that Biblical teaching is a consistent unity. 

If God in sanctification works in us both to will and 
to do, one would think that the Missouri brethren would 
deny all human ability and concurrence then as well as 
in regeneration; but, no, they teach the concurrence of 
the divine and human wills in sanctification, and there- 
fore teach Synergism at this point. Why are they not 
afraid of nullifying sola gratia here? If man after con- 
version can use his will, is there not danger that the idea 



Salient Scripture Teaching 77 

of human merit might creep into his mind? But this 
matchless passage does not compromise God's grace, be- 
cause the power to will comes from God's quickening 
Spirit, and that is the very highest incentive for willing 
and doing and working out our salvation with fear and 
trembling. Note this point carefully: God enables the 
willing, but He does not do the willing for man. He 
(man) must use the ability given him by divine grace. 
This is the peculiar function and prerogative of that high 
enduement of man — a free will, a will in liberty. Surely 
when God deals with man, he has regard for His own 
handiwork. Inasmuch He made him a moral personality, 
He will not treat him as if he were a piece of clay or 
an irrational animal, to which He would never say, 
"Repent ye, and believe the gospel." 

Observe, now, that the same general principle that 
prevails in effecting conversion is employed here in 
sanctification : "If any one willeth to do His will, he 
shall know," etc. ; "Ye will not come unto me that ye 
might have life;" "How often would I have gathered you 
. . . and ye would not;" "The spirit is willing, but the 
flesh is weak;" "If ye know these things, happy are ye 
if ye do them;" "He that heareth my words and doeth 
them;" "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of 
life freely." Just as the will is enabled by converting 
and sanctifying grace to perform its function in those 
moments, so it is enabled by preparatory grace to per- 
form its relevant function in that moment. Its function 
in the latter case is that of passivity or surrender toward 
God's grace; in the former, that of activity, concurrence 
and co-operation. 

At this point the inquiry may be raised: How can 



78 Election and Conversion 

the will have any spiritual ability to function before the 
sinner is converted ? It would be more pertinent to ask : 
How can God convert a man against his will? If he 
did that, it would not be a spiritual and ethical transac- 
tion, but merely a coerced and machine-like one. It 
would make conversion a materialistic instead of a 
spiritual transaction. If man were saved without his 
consent, he would not be saved at all, for sin would still 
be retained by him in his will. Remember, too, this 
vital fact — that when the spiritual will is enabled, or 
effected, or created, as you please, by prevenient grace, 
the sinner is still not saved from his sin and corrup- 
tion ; that body of death still lies within him like a blight 
and hideous deformity ; his will cannot remove it ; but he 
can beseech God to deliver him, and whenever he comes 
to the point when he is willing to let God save him, and 
God alone, God will do His part; He will deliver him 
from Satan's thrall; He will purify him from defile- 
ment; He will draw him from the mire and the clay, 
and place his feet upon a rock ; He will breathe the new 
life into him. 

Perhaps some one will object that there can be no 
spiritual movement in the soul before conversion. Then 
why speak at all of the Holy Spirit's preparatory acts? 
Is not the Spirit's work always spiritual? or does He 
sometimes act like a material force? Moreover, does 
not the Spirit in the "acts preparatory" produce con- 
viction of sin? Is not conviction a spiritual motus or 
condition of the soul? A proper estimate of God's holy 
prevenient grace will save our theology from much con- 
fusion; will keep it from becoming lifeless and pro- 
crustean. 



Salient Scripture Teaching 79 

A most interesting question is that of the inner 
nature of freedom and faith. Of course, there is much 
about their nature and functioning that we do not under- 
stand; but it is not all mystery. The Missouri brethren 
so often represent faith as if it were an entity, instead 
of a power, quality or activity of the soul. Dr. Pieper 
will not have it that the Holy Spirit makes us able to 
believe; he contends that He does not confer the ability, 
but the actual belief itself. With all our respect for his 
acuteness and sincerity, this seems to us a marvelous 
psychological conception. Then the Holy Spirit must 
do our believing for us ! Why not call it the Holy 
Spirit's faith, then, instead of ours? When Christ said 
to the impatient Jews, "Believe the gospel," He made a 
mistake; He should have said, "The Holy Spirit will 
believe for you !" So with every Biblical command to be- 
lieve. John 3:16 is not expressed correctly; it should 
be — but we refrain. In the same mechanical way Dr. 
Pieper treats the will. Freedom is not an enabled power 
or energy ; it is a something bestowed ; not a principle of 
life, but a something affixed. But does the Holy Spirit 
do our willing for us? Then He should have inspired 
John otherwise; not to say, "Whosoever will, let him 
take of the water of life freely," but, "If the Spirit 
does your willing for you." The same way with re- 
pentance; according to their view, it is not something 
enabled, but something bestowed. Then God must repent 
for man; man cannot do his own repenting. According 
to that logic, God does not give man the ability to walk, 
but bestows the actual walking upon him. So God would 
have to do our walking for us. 

Take a passage cited by Dr. Pieper in defense of his 



80 Election and Conversion 

view, Phil. 1 :29 : "Because unto you it is given in the 
behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to 
suffer in His behalf." (We quote the whole verse; our 
friend did not.) Here is his gloss: "To eis auton 
pisteuein, not merely the ability to believe on Him." This 
is almost the letter that killeth. But if "it is given unto 
us to believe," surely we must do the believing, must 
exercise the power that has been given us. He does not 
say, "It was given to the Holy Spirit to believe for us," 
but it was "given unto us to believe." More than that, 
the part that our friend left out is important: "It is 
given unto you . . . also to suffer in His behalf." Ac- 
cording to his exegesis of "belief," the Philippians should 
not suffer at all, but the Spirit ought to do their suffering 
for them. But see how beautifully consistent Paul is: 
just as the Philippians had been enabled by divine grace 
to believe on Christ, so now they were enabled to suffer 
in His behalf. There are no logical gaps nor organic 
breaks in the divine modus operandi. 

Having dwelt at some length on two classical pass- 
ages, we can tarry to examine just one more — that which 
depicts the three thousand conversions on the day of 
Pentecost. Peter preached a powerful sermon to the 
multitude. He spoke both the law and the gospel to 
them, and connected the Messiah of the New Testament 
with the history and prophecy of the Old. His words 
were not ineffective, for his hearers were smitten in 
their hearts, and cried out, "Brethren, what shall we 
do?" See how powerfully they were convicted; yet it 
was still only preparatory grace, not converting grace. 
Was that conviction an inner spiritual motus, or was it 
only the indentation made on a rubber ball? Peter did 



Salient Scripture Teaching 81 

not haggle about the word "do" which they had used, 
and say, "You cannot do anything until you are con- 
verted." It was no time to interject the doctrine of 
election, either. He simply did the practical thing, as 
he was led by the Spirit; he replied: "Repent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
unto the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you 
and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as 
many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." By 
more exhortation (see the next verses) he brought many 
of them to the yielding point, and the record goes on: 
"Then they that received his word were baptized ; and 
there were added on that day about three thousand 
souls." 

Observe that Peter does not show much regard for 
our beautifully schematized theological systems. Perhaps 
he was not a very good theologian ! He even commands 
unregenerate men to repent, bids them be baptized, and 
then adds, "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
Here it might even seem that regeneration came after 
repentance and baptism. Peter, be careful ! We are on 
the lookout for Synergism! 

But is there disorder here? Was God the author 
of confusion on that epoch-making day? Verily not. 
He observed His regular order, though He did not label 
the various steps as we do in our theologies. Let us 
analyze: First, Peter himself was filled with the Holy 
Ghost ; next, he preached the law to the sinful multitude, 
and vividly pointed out their terrible sin in crucifying 
the Lord of glory; the Holy Spirit was there, and per- 
formed His function through the words of Peter — He 



82 Election and Conversion 

wrought conviction ; this was the call and the illumination 
of the Holy Spirit through the law. But Peter mingled 
a great deal of the gospel in his sermon. Read it over 
and see how often he spoke of Christ as the Lord and 
Saviour and Messiah. Thus when he reached the end 
of his sermon — or this part of it — his hearers, though 
powerf uly convicted, were not wholly in despair, or they 
would not have cried out, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 
There is at least a gleam of hope there — something of 
the call and illumination of the gospel, with their ac- 
companying grace. Peter now knew that they were 
ready for the next step. Prevenient grace had made 
them conscious of that dead weight of sin within them, 
and had also made them willing to be saved from its 
fell blight and poison. Therefore he said, "Repent." 
Now repentance does not mean mere sorrow for sin; 
it really means, as Luther found out at a most critical 
time, "a change of mind" — metanoia — the very word 
Peter used here in the verb form. Therefore it means 
a change of mind respecting sin and salvation or Christ ; 
and so it consists of contrition and faith (Augsburg 
Confession, Art. XI). So the inner meaning of Peter's 
command was, "Turn from sin and turn to Christ." 
Faith is also implied in being "baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." So 
Peter's exhortation was virtually the same as that with 
which Christ began His ministry: "Repent ye, and be- 
lieve the gospel." 

And now comes the crux: How, according to 
Missouri's view and our own, could those three thousand 
people repent and believe before they were regenerated 
or converted ? For Dr. Pieper we can see no escape, for 



Salient Scripture Teaching 33 

he will have it that before conversion man can do, will, 
wish absolutely nothing. He is like a block or a stone 
or, perchance, a rubber ball. But, according to our view, 
the explanation is quite simple: as prevenient grace had 
aroused those sinners, convicted them, and made them 
willing to surrender to God and to let Him save them, 
Peter knew, being guided by God's Spirit, that, if he 
told them to repent and believe, and they were willing 
to do so, not by their own natural strength, but by the 
strength imparted to them by grace, then the Holy Spirit 
would continue His gracious work, would breathe the 
new life into them, and that would give them repentance 
and faith, or, in other words, would enable them to re- 
pent and believe. Then, if they went still further, and 
submitted to the sacrament of baptism, He would bestow 
a special gift or enduement upon them, just as many 
another man has received a special blessing in baptism. 
Thus the living, organic order of salvation was followed ; 
they were regenerated, justified and saved in a spiritual 
and ethical way. Salvation was not forced upon them, 
and yet the whole process was solely by the grace of 
God. Not a joint or crevice, however fine, where human 
merit or pride or boasting could creep in. 

The question may be asked why God so often com- 
mands men to do what they by nature are unable to do. 
For example, why does He command them to repent 
and believe, when they can do neither in their own 
strength? The secret is an open one. God never com- 
mands without conferring the ability to obey, "if there 
irst be a willing mind." The very command is spiritual, 
id carries with it the enabling power. Take two ex- 
tples from the life of Christ. In the presence of a 



84 Election and Conversion 

vast multitude of hungry people, and with only a few 
loaves and fishes available, Jesus said to His disciples, 
"Give ye them to eat." How could they carry out such 
a command? But in faith they obeyed Him at every 
step, and we know the result — they actually fed the whole 
multitude, and had much more food left than they began 
with. 

Again, a palsied, bed-ridden man, entirely unable to 
walk, was brought to Jesus (Matt. 9:1-8). After some 
conversation, He said to the sick of the palsy: "Arise, 
and take up thy bed, and go to thy house." The com- 
mand without the conferred ability would have been 
absurd; but the man had a willing mind, and so Christ 
gave him strength to walk and even to carry his couch. 
"So is every one that is born of the Spirit." 

One thing that we have sorely missed in the Con- 
cordia dogmatic — nothing has been said about the re- 
generation of infants in baptism ; nothing about baptismal 
grace in adult baptism. The whole treatment seems to 
go on the assumption that regeneration or conversion 
pertains only to adults. Do not our Missouri brethren 
believe in regenerating grace in and through baptism? 
The Lutheran Church makes so much of the vital relation 
between baptism and regeneration, just as the New 
Testament does, that we wonder a whole book can be 
written by a Lutheran theologian on the subject of re- 
generation without any mention of baptism. Surely most 
of our children of the Church receive in baptism the 
seeds of regeneration; then when they are taught about 
Christ and His love, these seminal principles unfold and 
active faith is produced, laying hold on the merits of 
Christ. In her practice Missouri is faithful in the 



Salient Scripture Teaching 85 

matters of baptism and catechization, but, somehow, in 
her dogmatic discussions of election and conversion she 
seems to overlook these important and vital steps in the 
Order of Salvation. If children are potentially regen- 
erated in baptism, how would that fit into Missouri's 
doctrine of election? Luther taught us always to look 
back to our baptism for assurance of salvation ; he never 
once, so far as we know, admonished us to look for 
assurance to God's eternal decrees. 



VIII 
PREPARATORY ACTS OF GRACE 

IN the next place, we must notice some things in Dr. 
Pieper's chapter on "Preparation for Conversion." If 
we mistake not, he never calls this preparation "grace," 
but only "acts," "actus," "motus," "praeparatio," etc. 
Just as if the gospel call were not of grace! This, it 
seems to us, is casting slight upon a most vital movement 
of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. 
However, there is probably reason for this careful re- 
straint about calling the preparatory work a work of 
grace; for it were called grace, and were grace, that 
would introduce grace before conversion, and that would 
never do, as it would overthrow this particular dogma 
of conversion and election. 

In a previous chapter the author seems to us to 
torture language in order to make it appear that those 
theologians who believe in "new powers imparted by 
grace" before conversion, always mean natural powers. 
Note how he puts it (page 36) : "What is intended by 
the phrase, 'powers imparted by grace/ never denotes, 
in reality, powers of grace, but natural powers." 

We wonder whether this is really generous. How 
could men of sincerity and scholarship say one thing 
and mean another? Nor do we see how any man could 
be guilty of such a mental hiatus as to mean that "im- 
parted powers of grace" are "natural powers." Men do 
not generally think in paradoxes like that. They might 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 87 

almost as well call white black and good evil. But what- 
ever may be said of others, when we speak of the effects 
of prevenient grace, we do not mean the natural powers 
of the will, but the new powers imparted by God's Spirit. 
We mean what we say, and will not permit a false 
meaning to be put into our words. 

But let us notice some of Dr. Pieper's statements. 
On page 37 he says: "Keep this in mind: previous to 
his conversion, or before the light of faith is kindled 
in his heart, man is spiritually dead, and can, previous 
to his conversion, employ the spiritual powers offered 
in God's gracious call as little as one who is physically 
dead can employ the physical vitality, if it were offered 
to him." 

This is most remarkable. If "spiritual powers" 
cannot be employed by the sinner, why in the world 
does God offer them to him ? That is one of the strangest 
things you could imagine — God offering spiritual powers 
to a dead man who can in nowise employ them. And 
why does God call the sinner if He does not intend to 
arouse him? Oh! let us not represent God as acting in 
an irrational way. Does the reader begin to see now 
why the present writer felt in conscience bound to take 
up this subject for discussion? We simply could not let 
such ideas of God's gracious dealings with men go un- 
corrected, for surely we would not want to try to cement 
the Lutheran Church into a union on such a basis of 
theology. 

Dr. Pieper says rightly (page 104) : "Very properly, 
therefore, the Formula of Concord rejects the teaching 
that man, when grace is offered to him, in any way 'can 
qualify and prepare himself for grace.' On the other 



88 Election and Conversion 

hand, it is correct to say that God prepares man for 
conversion." So we all say. But when man has been 
awakened by the call and illumination to his condition, 
then he surely can, by his newly acquired power, let God 
prepare him for conversion. The idea that God could 
"prepare him for conversion," and yet leave him as dead 
as he was before, is, to our mind, an inconsistent one. 
In that case God would work over him precisely as an 
undertaker works over a corpse. This is just as poor 
anthropology as theology. 

But Dr. Pieper cannot always be consistent with his 
preconceived theories, even when he quotes Luther to 
corroborate his views. On page 105 he says: "Luther 
was accustomed to express this matter thus : 'Man will 
not flee to Christ unless he has first tasted hell.' ' The 
italics are ours except the word "first." How can a dead 
man "flee to Christ" or "taste" anything? Oh, brethren, 
brethren, when we are dealing with man's salvation, we 
must remember that we are dealing with spiritual and 
psychical facts, not with material blocks and stones and 
corpses ! Afterward Dr. Pieper quotes Luther as saying : 
"The law prepares for grace {ad gratiam praeparat) by 
revealing and augmenting sin and by humiliating the 
proud, in order that they may desire help from Christ." 
This quotation is very unfortunate for Dr. Pieper's 
theory, for a "dead" man could not "desire help from 
Christ." Luther was right, for even in convicting men 
of sin by the law, God never fails to accompany the law 
by the gospel, and thus create a "desire for help from 
Christ," which desire must be the result of grace. Thus 
"the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ." 

Dr. Pieper continues : "Chemnitz stigmatizes as 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 89 

slander the Romanist charge that the Lutherans taught 
no 'preparation' for the acceptance of justifying grace. 
He says : 'It is untrue when they charge in the Ninth 
Canon that we deny that any motions of the will, im- 
parted and quickened by God, precede the acceptance of 
justification. For we do teach that repentance or con- 
trition comes first, and these cannot exist without great, 
sincere, and earnest motions of the will. But we do not 
say that penitence or contrition precede as something 
meritorious." 

By noting the words and phrases which we have 
italicised above, it will be seen that Chemnitz overthrows 
Dr. Pieper's central position. He would make the "dead" 
sinner even more active before conversion than we would 
ourself, for we would not go so far as to say that 
"repentance" goes before regeneration, because repen- 
tance has its faith side as well as its contrition side. 
With Chemnitz we also deny that there is anything 
meritorious in penitence and contrition. 

Dr. Pieper frequently refers to and quotes from 
Latermann and Musaeus. We must confess frankly 
that we have no direct acquaintance with the writings 
of these theologians ; but, if Dr. Pieper quotes them cor- 
rectly — and we have no doubt he does — they surely went 
too far toward synergism. If they say that, before con- 
version, the sinner is capable of "good conduct" toward 
grace and of "co-operation unto conversion," we would 
object ; for that would imply, first, some merit in man 
("good conduct"), and, second, a positive activity of the 
human will before conversion ("co-operation"), and thus 
would enable the sinner partly to convert himself ; where- 
as we hold that the prevenient will is purely passive at 



90 Election and Conversion 

this point, and can only say: "Lord, have mercy upon 
me a sinner; I can do nothing; Thou, and Thou alone, 
must save me !" Just as Peter cried, when sinking in 
the waves : "Lord, save me, or I perish ;" he could 
not do a thing to save himself ; he could simply let Christ 
save him. As he did let Christ save him, he was saved ; 
but if he had not left Christ save him, he would have 
perished — unless, perchance, Christ had saved him by 
physical force, which He will never do for the sinner. 
So we refuse to be put into the company of Latermann 
and Musaeus, if they taught what has been attributed 
to them. 

At this point Dr. Pieper again tries to put his 
opponents into a logical cul-de-sac (pages 108-9). He 
quotes from the Strassburg Faculty. We give the gist of 
it: How could a will created by grace — in other words, 
the new power imparted by the Spirit — exercise any 
choice between good and evil? If it is a spiritually 
enabled will, it surely could choose only in accord with 
the will of God. 

This, we reply, is simply another example of the 
materialistic and mechanical way of looking at ethical 
and spiritual realities. It comes from a misconception 
of an ethical will. More study of the deep principles 
of Christian ethics would be helpful. A will — that is, 
a good will — is not something that must choose one way, 
and only one, but a faculty that has the power of alternate 
choice. Otherwise it is not a will, in the true sense of 
the term, but an enslaved will. The corrupt will of the 
unsaved sinner is not truly a will, for it can choose only 
one way. Not so with a good will, a spiritually enabled 
will; it is good by the very token that it is free from 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 91 

bondage, and can elect. We prove this statement from 
Christ Himself (John 8:34-37) : "Every one that com- 
mitteth sin is the slave of sin. And the slave abideth 
not in the house forever; the son abideth forever. If 
therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free 
indeed." When Adam came from the creative hand of 
God, was his will a good will or an evil one? A good 
will, surely, for God never created evil; and yet he had 
the power of alternate choice, and, sadly enough, made 
a misuse of it. 

Missouri teaches that, after conversion, the will is 
made free by divine grace. If so, according to her own 
logic, this will could choose only one way, because it 
is a will established by grace; yet Missouri teaches that 
those who have been converted can backslide. But how 
can a will established by God's grace ever decide against 
that grace? This would seem to be another "mystery," 
this time a psychological one. However, according to 
our view, that a good will is one that has the power 
of alternate choice, there is no difficulty. 

But even taking Missouri's mechanical view of the 
will, there might be said to be two wills in man after 
the call and prior to his conversion — the old evil one 
and the good enabled one. They would certainly oppose 
each other. The evil will would try to overcome and 
destroy the good one that God has stirred into activity; 
and that would account for the schism that occurs in 
every sinner's soul when the Holy Spirit convicts him 
through the law and offers him pardon through the 
gospel. Note Paul's graphic portrayal of the two wills 
within him, the one lusting against the other (Rom. 
7:13-25). Also Christ: "The spirit indeed is willing, 
but the flesh is weak." 



92 Election and Conversion 

The rest of our Concordia friend's dissertation on 
preparatory work is not only full of contradictions, 
strained reasoning and ex parte interpretations of Scrip- 
ture, but also reduces the preparatory work of the Spirit 
through the call and illuminiation to nihil. The idea that 
all these prevenient impressions are only "from with- 
out" is, in our opinion, wide of the mark. That would 
be an anomalous work of the Holy Spirit that would 
simply make outside impressions, without in the least 
affecting the inside of the sinner's soul. Why, even 
the "rubber-ball" illustration would show more than that, 
for you could not make the least impression upon the 
ball's surface without causing a movement of all the 
atoms within! Much less a human soul where the 
operations are not mechanical, but psychical and spiritual. 
But even here our earnest friend cannot preserve his 
consistency, for in referring to Paul's discourse before 
Festus and Agrippa (page 114), he says: "The context 
shows that the whole company were listening attentively, 
and that Festus and Agrippa were really inwardly moved 
and powerfully agitated." Yet, so far as we know, they 
never were converted. This shows how difficult it is 
for any man, however learned and sincere, to sustain an 
inconsistent theory. If this sounds too severe, it is 
meant kindly. 

It is all but impossible for our brethren across the 
line to keep their modes of expression in accord with 
their own views: they are constantly overstepping the 
line. Even good Dr. Walter had this failing. See this 
quotation on page 109: "Conversion, indeed, does not 
occur ordinarily without several preparatory phenomena 
(Vorgaenge) within man, and in this sense conversion 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 93 

is accomplished by degrees, gradually; but conversion 
itself in every case occurs in an instant." Notice "with- 
in man," not merely "outside." 

Take one of Dr. Walter's favorite illustrations 
(pages 113, 114) — that of a besieged fortress. "The 
fortress receives impressions from without; it is bom- 
barded and attacked. The besieged, however, do not 
make common cause with the besieging force, but try 
to prevent the taking of the fortress." 

To our mind, this is a very ineffective illustration; 
but let us admit it for the sake of argument. If the walls 
were violently bombarded from without, and were be- 
ginning to topple, it is likely that the people within the 
fortress would be a good deal impressed, a good deal 
agitated, just as the human heart is when it is assaulted 
by the law. Again, if the besieging forces did not suc- 
ceed in taking the fortress, it would be because the army 
within were too strong for them, and so they were finally 
driven away by superior force and skill. Here again 
the illustration fails, for the Holy Spirit cannot be over- 
come by force; nor does He act upon the soul by 
coercion. But suppose the people within the walls finally 
capitulate ; this must have occurred in one of two ways : 
either because they were forcibly overcome while yet 
resisting, or because they at length became willing to sur- 
render. In which way do our Missouri brethren think 
the transaction takes place in the case of a sinner's 
conversion ? 

We must pause here to remark on this matter of 
the sinner being converted without his consent, or, in 
other words, by force. If he is positively dead, like a 
corpse, before his conversion, he must be converted by 



94 Election and Conversion 

coercion. If so, how can it be by grace? Could a con- 
version that was forced upon an unwilling sinner be called 
a work of grace? Would not that method nullify sola 
gratia ? We ask the question kindly, not for the purpose 
of driving our brethren into a corner ; merely as a matter 
to be seriously pondered. But if the call awakens the 
sinner to his condition, and prevenient grace enables him 
to be willing to let God save him, and he so consents, 
then the whole process is ethical and spiritual, and there- 
fore — sola gratia. 

Another of Dr. Walter's remarks is found on page 
117: "When the Lord says, 'Thou art not far from the 
kingdom of God,' Mark 12:34, He would say, 'There 
are in thee even now preparatory effects of the Spirit;' 
for the scribe here addressed had already yielded to a 
better understanding of the law." 

Note the words, "in," "effects," and "had already 
yielded ;" and yet all of it had taken place in the man's 
soul before his conversion, for we do not know even 
today whether he was ever converted or not. Yet our 
author says : "In the same connection Walter rejects 
every status medius. He says : 'Whoever teaches that a 
man may be converted, and yet not be entirely converted, 
contradicts the Scriptures, which know but two states, 
death and life. Whoever is not under grace is under 
wrath ; whoever is not in life is still in death ; whoever 
is not on the way to heaven is on the way to hell ; who- 
ever is an unsaved person is a damned person. There 
is no twilight stage, no middle state between light and 
darkness.' " 

How do these radical statements comport with what 
he says above about the scribe having "already yielded 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 95 

to a better understanding of the law?" How could a 
man utterly "dead" and in utter "darkness" commend 
the lofty spiritual import of the law, as Christ had in- 
terpreted it to him ? This statement entirely ignores both 
God's call and illumination before conversion, making 
them ineffective. Besides, if there is no "twilight" 
stage, God's method in nature and His method in grace 
are utterly diverse : for in nature there is always a twi- 
light stage (or, rather, dawn) before the sun comes up in 
its full glory. Why, the Bible itself recognizes a period 
of dawn in spiritual matters (2 Pet. 1 :19) : "Until the 
day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts." 

Still another quotation from Walter is given on 
pages 117 and 118: "It sounds very fine when modern 
theologians say: 'When God gives strength to uncon- 
verted man, he is able to co-operate toward his con- 
version.' " 

We pause, lest we be misunderstood, to say we reject 
the view that the unconverted man can "co-operate toward 
his conversion;" the word "co-operate" is, to our mind, 
too strong a word at that stage ; the called and illumined 
sinner can do nothing toward his conversion; he can 
simply let God save him; that much ability God gives 
in the call and illumination — to be passive in God's 
hands ; even as long as he tries to save himself, he will 
balk God's efforts to save him. This lies at the very 
heart of moral and spiritual realities : a sinner cannot 
convert himself, nor forgive himself, nor cleanse away 
his own sins. 

Dr. Walter pursues : "But that is wrong ; for a dead 
person cannot make use of imparted powers as long as 
he lacks the strength necessary for the employment of 



96 Election and Conversion 

such powers, that is to say, as long as he lacks life. You 
may roll a dead body back and forth, and by applying 
electricity cause him to open his eyes or his mouth, and 
so on, but all this remains a result of forces affecting 
him from without. Only he who has become subjectively 
a possessor of power can move himself." 

Oh ! no ! no ! the Holy Spirit does not work in that 
mechanical way on the human heart. Electricity is a 
dead force, a purely mechanical energy, but Paul says 
(1 Cor. 15 :45) : "The last Adam (Christ) became a life- 
giving spirit;" and (2 Cor. 3:6): "The letter killeth, 
but the Spirit giveth life." We maintain once more that, 
when the Holy Spirit calls the sinner to grace and sal- 
vation, He does not assault him like a dead force, but 
with a living power and persuasion; He awakens him 
to his undone and defiled condition and shows him Christ 
as his Saviour. If the Spirit can do that much through 
the call and illumination, He can also quicken the will, 
or confer a new will, to the extent that the sinner will 
be willing to let God pardon and save him. Observe 
also the contradiction in the above quotation from 
Walter: "A dead person cannot make use of imparted 
powers," etc. Then how can they be imparted, or if 
they can be, what good does it do for God to impart 
them? And also what good would it do to apply elec- 
tricity to a dead body — unless it would be merely 
for scientific and experimental purposes, or perchance 
to satisfy idle curiosity? 

Apology is made to Dr. Pieper for our having to 
say that his chapter on "The 'Possibility' of Conversion" 
is a species of hair-splitting that ought to be left entirely 
in the domain of dogmatic liberty, and should never for 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 97 

a moment be permitted to cause schism in our great and 
beloved Lutheran Zion. It is somewhat ingenious, but 
far from convincing. It contains contradictions. Com- 
menting on Isa. 55 :6, "Seek ye the Lord while He may 
be found," he quotes Osiander as follows : "The Lord 
is near and can be found when, through the preaching 
of the gospel, He offers salvation to us. But when He 
takes away His Word, so that it no longer is correctly 
understood, He can be neither found nor properly 
worshipped. Let us, then, gratefully seize the oppor- 
tunity by means of which the Lord in His grace 
approaches us." 

But a "dead" man could not "gratefully seize the 
opportunity." You see, it is impossible for our dear 
friends, the electionists, to maintain their consistency. 
We hope they will not reply that such is the teaching 
of the Bible, and thus try to fix the responsibility for 
dogmatic inconsistency upon the inspired volume. And 
when does God take away His Word? He never does 
this arbitarily. When He says (Gen. 6:3) : "My Spirit 
shall not always strive with man," it is because, as the 
context shows, they have, by their terrible sins and stub- 
born resistance, "grieved the Holy Spirit of God" (Eph. 
4:30); or as is said in Gen. 6:6: "And it repented 
Jehovah that He had made man on the earth, and it 
grieved Him at the heart." No, the Bible never repre- 
sents God as acting in an arbitrary or capricious way. 

Further on (page 120), Dr. Pieper himself says: 
"The expressions, 'possibility of conversion,' 'opportun- 
ity' of conversion, 'possibility of being converted,' should 
then be retained in the sense, viz., that the saving grace 
of God comprises all men, and that the Holy Spirit 



98 Election and Conversion 

operates in all hearers unto conversion, and that the 
cause of non-conversion is to be sought solely in man's 
resistance. This is summed up in the terms gratia 
sufficiens. The Scriptures teach gratia sufficiens, that 
is to say, that God operates through the call in such a 
manner and to such an extent that all hearers of the 
Word may be 'enlightened, converted and saved,' and 
that no hearer remains unconverted by reason of some 
deficiency in the operations of divine grace or by reason 
of a lack of gracious intent on the part of God." 

We do not want to be hypercritical, but since 
Missouri constantly makes all her favorite figures of 
speech "go on all fours," as the saying is, we would kindly 
ask, How can "dead" sinners be "hearers of the Word?" 
If they are "dead" like logs or corpses, how can it be 
said that "the Holy Spirit operates in all hearers unto 
conversion?" Our brethren ought to remember that every 
simile is defective in some points, while entirely pertinent 
in others, that is, the points in which the parallelism is 
intended. "Omne simile claudicat." 

What Dr. Pieper says on pages 121-123 on Syner- 
gism does not concern us, for, as we have so often said 
before, we reject Synergism, which means that the uncon- 
verted sinner, in his natural state, can co-operate with 
God in his salvation, or that, by means of spiritual abilities 
imparted in the Call, he can actively co-operate or in any 
way help to convert and save himself. Most positively 
do we reject Melanchthon's formula in the last edition 
of his Loci, when he enumerated "three causes of con- 
version, viz., the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the will 
of man" (Jacobs, id., page 224). If, after the sinner's 
awakening through the Call, he would be saved, he must 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 99 

simply surrender to God's saving power, must be 
quiescent in God's hand, must let God save him; and 
this He can do, because God's Call to him has been a 
living, energizing Call. 

A word now as to what Dr. Walter called motus 
inevitabiles. This is the scholastic term which he applied 
to the motions or acts of the Holy Spirit prior to con- 
version. They are simply inevitable motions, so far as 
the sinner's will is concerned. In rejoinder we would 
say that the only motus of that kind in the process are the 
first proffers of grace through the Call. Of course, the 
sinner must first hear the Word of God. Just how long 
such motus are continued by our heavenly Father we 
need not try to determine; for He alone knows how to 
fit His overtures to every person's case. From the very 
nature of the process there must be such initial move- 
ments on God's part: if God did not first give the Call, 
no one would ever be saved; no one would ever know 
about Christ and His redemption. "How shall they 
believe on Him of whom they have not heard?" God 
always initiates the process: "Ye have not chosen me, 
but I have chosen you" (Matt. 15:16) ; "We love Him, 
because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19; also John 3:16). 
Yes, the initiative in salvation always comes from God. 
But after God, by His gracious Call and Illumination, 
has sufficiently aroused the sinner to produce conviction 
and the sense of responsibility, the motus invitabiles must 
cease, and acts involving man's moral and spiritual 
freedom must begin and continue. Not to be outdone 
by our learned friends in the use of scholastic terms, 
these acts might be called motus morales et voluntarii. 

An instance of treating an opponent unfairly and 



100 Election and Conversion 

imposing upon him views that he does not hold, is found 
on page 123, where a quotation is made from the Strass- 
burg Faculty as follows: "Does not God on His part 
grant that we will? Does He merely grant that we are able 
to will, able to convert ourselves, able to believe?" 

We wonder whether there ever has been a Lutheran 
who said or thought that we poor, undone sinners are 
"able to convert ourselves?" By running that damaging 
phrase into the sentence, the writers did not fairly repre- 
sent their opponents' view. God certainly does confer 
the ability to will and believe. Surely He does not do our 
willing and believing for us, any more than He does our 
walking, breathing, eating, or even our thinking for us ; 
but that is continents away from saying that a man is able 
to convert himself. To will and believe belong to a differ- 
ent category from to convert, for God enables willing and 
believing, and then men must use the powers conferred ; 
but as for converting, God alone can and must do that, 
just as He alone must forgive and save. We have con- 
tended all along that, through prevenient grace, the 
sinner is simply enabled to let God convert and save him. 

"Then," we fancy Dr. Pieper will reply, "it all 
depends, after all, on man's choice." Not so. It all 
depends on God's grace and power, and, of course, on His 
eternal f oreordination ; for the whole process of salva- 
tion must have been predetermined in eternity. But there 
must come a time in the process when God's Spirit en- 
ables the sinner to choose to let himself be saved or not, 
as the Scripture teaches : "Choose ye this day whom ye 
will serve" (Josh. 24:15); "How long halt ye between 
two opinions? If God be God, follow Him; if Baal, 
then follow him" (1 Kings 18:21, spoken to unregenerate 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 101 

men). If such a moment of option does not come to 
the sinner before conversion, then conversion is forced 
upon him. Will the theologian, or, for that matter, any 
one else, try to think of a man being converted without 
his consent or against his consent? What kind of a con- 
version would that be? Figure it out as you will, there 
must be a point, prior to conversion, when God deals 
with the sinner's will, which He has called into action. 
From a psychological view-point this must be true ; for 
God's Call and Illumination give the sinner the knowledge 
of sin and salvation, as the Missourians themselves 
admit; so, as the mind is a unit, the cognising power 
could not be called into action without producing some 
effect upon the susceptibility and the will. If this is not 
true, God acts contrary to the psychical laws which He 
Himself has foreordained and established. 

A few more observations are needed to complete 
this part of the subject. If Missouri means by conver- 
sion the whole process of grace from awakening to justi- 
fication, she should say so positively and clearly, and 
should not insist on actus praeparatorii; then we could 
agree with her; then, too, much confusion and con- 
troversy would be avoided in the Church. That really 
is what should be called conversion (conversio, a com- 
plete turning), while the actual bestowal of the new life 
and of faith should be called regeneration (from 
regenerare, to beget again). In that case, however, 
Missouri should not call conversion instantaneous. 
Really we have sometimes suspected that what the rest 
of us term the Call and the Illumination, the Missouri 
advocates call conversion ; for when Dr. Pieper on page 
111 speaks about the experience of conversion he makes 



102 Election and Conversion 

it such a gentle, zephyr-like transaction that one wonders 
what all the theological agitation is about. Conversion, 
he says, occurs "in a way imperceptible to human feeling, 
and so divinely gentle that few converted persons are 
able to state the hour of their conversion." Beautiful, 
indeed ! While many adults are not converted in that 
quiet way, many are, and almost all properly reared 
children of Christian parents are. It is the normal way. 
But, somehow, it does not comport well with Missouri's 
position, for during the introductory stage (praeparatio) 
the "dead" sinner seems to be more active, alive and 
conscious of what is transpiring than he is in the moment 
of actual conversion. Is our debate a logomachy? 

Our next paragraph is about a good will, a free 
will, a will disenthralled to the extent needed at the 
given moment in God's economy of grace. Missouri 
always treats the will as if it were a kind of material 
thing or a machine. Therefore, in the interest of 
Christian ethics, we desire to say that a free will is not 
something that is pulled down by force on one side or 
the other, but that is placed in equilibrium, so that it can 
elect for itself. That was the will in liberty with 
which Adam and Eve were originally endowed. Now, 
in the process of divine mercy and grace in restoring 
man to his original estate, there must come moments 
when man is capable of exercising this original endue- 
ment. It is restored sola gratia just as it was originally 
bestowed sola gratia. 

There is one significant phrase in the Madison 
Agreement of the Norwegians to which Dr. Pieper 
objects. It is in Sec. 4 (page 8) where the Norwegians 
say: "In other words, we reject every doctrine which 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 103 

. . . would weaken man's sense of responsibility in re- 
spect of the acceptance or rejection of God's grace." 
So alert is Dr. Pieper constantly in his defense of his 
favorite doctrines that he scents danger here. There 
might be the least hint of Synergism in such language. 
He says (page 35) : "The phrase, 'feeling of responsi- 
bility over against* the acceptance or rejection of grace/ 
creates the impression as if there existed in man before 
his conversion a condition or moment of time in which 
he may decide, as well whether he will accept, as whether 
he will reject, the grace offered him." 

Do our Missouri brethren ever preach the gospel 
to the unconverted? If they do, do they tell them they 
have and can have no "feeling of responsibility" in re- 
gard to the salvation offered them? If they do tell them 
this, how can they ever expect any sinner to repent and 
come to God? If they do not tell them this frankly, 
but talk to them as if they were responsible beings since 
they have heard the gospel, then the Missourians are 
not preaching their own doctrine, but another doctrine. 
How do they preach to the unconverted, anyway? If 
the preaching of the law to the unsaved produces con- 
viction — and surely that is its office — then it must stir 
a "feeling of responsibility." Why do our brethren 
preach the law? And when they do preach it to the 
unconverted, do they expect it to produce no other effect 
than that of an impact on a rubber ball or of an electric 
shock on a dead body? You cannot build an operative 
Church on this doctrine of election. It is too academic 



*The phrase "over against" is not used in the Madison 
Agreement, but "in respect of." This is perhaps only a technical 
oversight. 



104 Election and Conversion 

and scholastic. It is not a practical or a preachable 
theology. It may be a theology for the professor's chair, 
but not for the practical preacher and pastor out in the 
field, dealing with living, thinking, sinning men and 
women. Even most of the Presbyterian ministers with 
whom we have conversed have accepted election in view 
of faith persevered in to the end of life. They could not 
make the theology of their creed applicatory in their 
work. 

Oh, brethren, we must have a theology that we can 
preach to all classes of men and that will make a truthful 
appeal to them. Again we must raise the relevant 
question, Can the Lutheran Church of America accept 
the electionist theology as the only basis of union? 

Not to inject too much of the personal element into 
this discussion, the present writer, who was a pastor for 
many years, was blessed of God with the joy of winning 
many unconverted persons to Christ. He had a theology 
that he could preach, and preach with all his heart; and 
he always tried to arouse a feeling of responsibility in 
the sinner's mind, telling him that he could have salva- 
tion if he would, and that, if he did not, it would be 
his own fault. Whether this was the correct theology 
or not, it worked. Today there are many faithful and 
loyal Lutherans in the churches he served that were 
brought to Christ by that kind of preaching. Do we 
want to accept a system of dogmatics that we cannot 
preach right out with utter frankness and fullness to all 
classes of people? And, above all, do we want to make 
such a system the basis of union? 

And where did our Lord Jesus Christ try to posit 
the "feeling of responsibility?" Precisely with the un- 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 105 

converted people to whom He preached. He said to the 
Pharisees : "Ye will not come to me that ye may have 
life." Was He not trying to stir a "feeling of re- 
sponsibility" in them, or was he simply trying to make 
indentations on rubber balls? Our Lord severely up- 
braided the cities of Galilee, Chorazin, Capernaum and 
Bethsaida, saying it would be more tolerable for Tyre, 
Sidon and Sodom than for them in the day of judgment 
(Matt. 11 :20-24). And why this stern rebuke? Because 
of the mighty works He had done among them. Was 
He not fixing the responsibility upon those sinners to 
whom He was preaching? The fact is, He was making 
their own choice the very thing that determined their 
eternal destiny. And remember they were unconverted 
sinners, too. Why, brethren, every command of God, 
every precept, every invitation, every threat of punish- 
ment — every one connotes human responsibility. When 
Peter, on the day of Pentecost, accused his hearers of 
their wickedness in having crucified Jesus, he was trying 
to stir within them the "feeling of responsibility;" and he 
succeeded, too, for they "were pricked in their heart," and 
cried out, "Brethren, what shall we do?" When Isaiah 
said: "Come now, saith the Lord, and let us reason to- 
gether ; though your sins be as scarlet," he was trying to 
make those sinners conscious of their "responsibility." So 
we hope the Norwegian brethren will retain the afore- 
said clause. 

If there is no "condition or moment" before con- 
version when the sinner can decide whether he will let 
God save him or not, then, if he is converted, he must 
be converted by force, just as we have proved again and 
again. Such a theology makes all the gracious invita- 



106 Election and Conversion 

tions of the Bible to the unconverted nugatory, not to 
say insincere. Again, this idea that sinners before con- 
version have no responsibility, and even no feeling of 
responsibility, is not true to the facts of every-day ex- 
perience, for thousands of them do have that feeling, 
as you will discover if you have a heart-to-heart talk 
with them. Worst of all, these stiff, immobile, pro- 
crustean doctrines of election and conversion would 
logically lead to fatalism; also the destruction of all 
sense of moral obligation on the part of unconverted 
people. What state of society would that bring about? 
The saving feature about the whole matter is that neither 
the Missourians nor the Calvinists consistently push their 
logic to the fatal conclusion. In every-day practice they 
treat sinners just as if they were responsible human 
beings. The conclusion is that they have a theology that 
is not practical, but theoretical, academic and speculative. 
Another difficulty about this peculiar doctrine of 
conversion and election is this : In the first place, 
Missouri teaches that unsaved sinners are condemned 
solely through their own fault; in other words, it is 
their own fault that they are non-elect; yet she teaches, 
in the next breath, that they could not do otherwise 
than they do, even though God calls them to repentance. 
Then how can the blame be theirs? They could not do 
otherwise than they do. If God calls them, and they 
can only resist, and God does not even make them will- 
ing to allow themselves to be saved, then God fails to 
make the call effectual in their case, while He does make 
it effectual in the case of the elect. Then who is to 
blame if the non-elect are not saved? Of course, 
Missouri will say, "Right there is the mystery!" But it 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 107 

is a mystery created by Missouri, not by the Bible. The 
Bible says in ringing tones, "Whosoever will ! who- 
soever will !" 

Our friends may object to having this remorseless 
logic applied to their theology; but we reply that men 
will think; you cannot prevent that; and if theologians 
will take an inconsistent position, they cannot blame 
thinking men for drawing the logical conclusions from 
their premises. We challenge any gospel preacher to 
preach this doctrine of the irresponsibility of the sinner 
to the sinner himself! For our part, we do not care for 
a system of theology that you must keep in the class- 
room, but dare not proclaim from the house-top. 

All people intuitively think and speak of men as 
free moral agents. An old Presbyterian farmer was 
once declaring stoutly that he believed in the genuine 
old-fashioned doctrine of election. Some one asked him 
why it was, then, that so many people are not elected. 
He replied : "Have you ever known a person to be 
elected who refused to be a candidate?" He simply 
could not be consistent with his theory. A well-known 
Presbyterian divine, now gone to his reward, was wont 
to say: "I believe in the perseverance of saints — if the 
saints persevere !" All men who are not in the thrall of 
a theory think and act in that practical way. We be- 
lieve in both a theology and philosophy that can be lived 
and applied. The theology of the Bible is just such a 
theology. In some places it properly emphasizes God's 
sovereign rule ; at other places man's free moral agency 
and responsibility. Both principles are true, and there 
is no conflict between them. Indeed, it magnifies the 
power and glory of God to know that He is so great 



108 Election and Conversion 

and omniscient that He can make free agents and yet 
preserve His perfect rulership. If He could not do that, 
He would not be infinite in wisdom and power. 

A mistake that Concordia makes is to try to prove, by 
a dialectical process, that their doctrine of election gives 
to believers assurance of final salvation, while the oppos- 
ing doctrine leaves them in uncertainty. Here we believe 
there has been some error on both sides, or, perhaps, lack 
of clearness. Such a thing as absolute and unconditional 
assurance of final salvation is not taught in the Sacred 
Scriptures. Such assurance would lead to carnal secur- 
ity. There would then be no need for Christ to say: 
"Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation;" "What 
I say unto you I say unto all, Watch ;" "Abide in me, and 
I in you;" "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as 
a branch and is withered." Other warnings are : "Let 
him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall;" 
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;" 
"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation ;" "Be thou 
faithful unto death, and I will give a crown of life." 
God's way is right. He gives us enough assurance to 
keep us from worry and anxiety, yet not so much as to 
cause us to be "at ease in Zion." Even Paul expressed 
some concern for his final salvation (1 Cor. 9:27) : "But 
I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage : lest by any 
means, after that I have preached to others, I myself 
should be rejected." 

The Missouri position can never give unconditional 
assurance, for no one can be sure in this life just what 
took place in the counsels of eternity (unless God re- 
veals it in time, and Missouri holds that he has not made 
such a revelation respecting election). True, it might 



Preparatory Acts of Grace 109 

be said, if a man has accepted Christ as his Lord and 
Redeemer, that ought to be a sure token of his election. 
Ah ! the trouble is, so many believe on Christ for a time, 
then lose their faith, and so do not persevere to the end. 
So faith in Christ is not, after all, a sure criterion of 
election unto eternal life. Anyway, if election is a closed 
secret with God, no one can ever know until he dies 
and goes to heaven whether he has been elected or not. 

No less can the advocates of election intuitu fidei 
give absolute certitude of final perseverance and salva- 
tion. Why? Because the believer may fail to keep on 
to the end. Many converted persons have backslidden. 
Even Missouri does not hold to the Calvinistic doctrine, 
"once in grace always in grace." 

So there is small need of bandying argument on this 
point. For our part, we believe the advantage lies on 
the side of the intuitu fidei doctrine. It will prove a 
spur to continuance in faith, whereas the Missouri 
doctrine, if pushed to its conclusion, would be likely to 
lead either to false security or to despair. We would 
state our position in this way: In view of all the peace, 
comfort and joy of faith in Jesus Christ; of the darkness 
and sorrow of a life of sin and doubt; of the many 
precious promises of eternal bliss to those who are faith- 
ful to the end; of the many assurances that God will 
be faithful to his part of the baptismal covenant; that 
He will not, if we trust Him, suffer us to be tempted 
above our ability; that both Christ and the Father will 
hold us in their all-powerful hands — in view, we say, 
of all these things, there surely is small inducement for 
believers ever to desire to turn back to "the beggary 
elements of the world." Should they give up their 



110 Election and Conversion 

birthright, it would be against every incentive that 
heaven can place before them. If God-in-Christ holds 
us in His hands, so that no enemy can pluck us from 
His grasp, it certainly would be very foolish for us to 
want to squirm out of His gracious and omnipotent 
protection. If we did so, we would deserve no further 
consideration at His hands. We confess that we feel 
more secure with such assurance than we would if we 
thought a mysterious decree were hanging over us. At 
the same time, we would have more heart to persevere 
in faith. Thus, on the one hand, the believer is immune 
from anxiety; on the other, he is saved from carnal 
security. 



IX 

MISSOURI'S FAVORITE SCRIPTURE 
PASSAGES 

A PLEASANT privilege is now ours — that of 
examining our Missouri brethren's favorite pass- 
ages of Scripture bearing on the doctrine of election. 
We say a "privilege," for the study of God's Word is 
the greatest delight. After all our reasoning, we must 
finally decide according to God's holy oracles ; they are 
the last court of appeal. "To the law and to the testi- 
mony ! if they speak not according to this word, surely 
there is no morning for them" (Isa. 8:20). In this 
controversy, we have no hesitancy in making the appeal 
to the Bible. "The testimony of the Lord is sure, 
making wise the simple. . . . The commandment of the 
Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes'' (Ps. 19:7, 8). 

The first passage to claim our attention is Rom. 
8:28-30 (American Revised Version) : "And we know 
that to them that love God all things work together for 
good, even to them that are called according to His 
purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained 
to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might 
be the first-born among many brethren : and whom He 
foreordained, them He also called : and whom He called, 
them He also justified: and whom He justified, them 
He also glorified." 

We begin with verse 29 : "For whom He fore- 
knew" (oti ous proegno). The Greek verb here used 



112 Election and Conversion 

is a form of pro-gignoskein, meaning, by its very 
etymology, to know before. Dr. Pieper (page 73) tries 
to break the force of this verb by identifying it with 
elect or predestinate. Yet elsewhere in his book he 
says we should not interpret God's Word, but take it 
just as it says. Here, however, when the plain words 
do not suit his theology, he gives them an interpretation 
to fit. Thus we all have our subjective biasses; we are 
all very human. But we fear he cannot maintain his 
interpretation. It would make Paul a very poor 
rhetorician for him to say, "For whom he did predes- 
tinate, them He did predestinate to be conformed," etc. 
The Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul, would hardly have 
moved him to use such meaningless tautology. Besides, 
the word translated "foreordain" or "predestinate" is pro- 
orisen (second "o" is omega), aorist of pro-orizein, to de- 
termine beforehand. So Dr. Pieper's explication is in- 
admissible. Therefore, taking the plain meaning of the 
words just as they stand, they must signify that God 
foreknew certain persons; foreknowing them, He fore- 
ordained them to be made like Christ — that is, to be 
saved ; having thus determined in eternity, He proceeded 
to carry out the decree in time by calling, justifying and 
glorifying them. What needs to be settled now is, who 
are the persons whom He foreknew? 

Let us remember that Paul is speaking about those 
who are saved according to the gospel of Christ. Now, 
when we look into the plan of redemption as it has been 
plainly set forth in the Bible, we find that the terms or 
conditions of salvation always are faith, or repentance 
and faith (John 3:14-21; John 20:31; Luke 13:3, 5; 
Acts 2:38; 3:19, 20; 13:38, 39; 16:31; Rom. 5:1, 2, 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 113 

and a hundred others). Therefore, if in time He has 
revealed persevering faith to be the condition of salva- 
tion, He must have foreordained it to be so from eternity ; 
surely, then, for those who He foreknew would comply 
with His plainly announced condition, He would make 
his predetermination effective.* Thus the election must 
have been "in view of faith" (of course persevered in 
to the end). And remember, "it is by faith that it might 
be by grace." So we have established our glorious Luth- 
eran doctrine of justification by faith alone, connoting 
salvation by grace alone. And all has been in accord 
with God's gracious eternal decree, based upon His 
infinite foresight or omniscience. We praise God for 
His absolute knowledge ; it gives a solid basis for all 
His predeterminations, so that none of them can mis- 
carry, and yet all of them are just, right, gracious and 
kind. 

Here it is proper to define still more closely the 
doctrine of election "in view of faith." Perhaps we 
should have made the proper distinctions earlier in this 
discussion. The phrase is liable to misunderstanding from 
the fact that it seems to the opponent as if we meant 
that men can believe on Christ before they are con- 
verted. On the other hand, if we insist that faith is the 
gift of God, and is an ability bestowed simply and solely 
by God's grace first in regeneration, then why might we 
not just as well fall in with Missouri, and say that men 

*"What is the force of the words, 'who from eternity He fore- 
saw?' " . . Secondly, that Predestination is not identical with 
foreknowledge; and, thirdly, that, speaking of course an- 
thropomorphically, but nevertheless in accordance with Holy 
Scripture, and therefore with absolute truth, foreknowledge is 
not dependent upon predestination, but predestination upon fore- 
knowledge" (Jacobs, idem, page 555). 



114 Election and Conversion 

are "elected unto faith?" So we believe that some of the 
exponents of intuitu fidei have not made quite all the 
distinctions that should have been made at this point. 
To put it just as accurately as we can, we would say: 
God has elected sinners in view of the use they will make 
of divinely imparted and enabled freedom at every point 
in the Order of Salvation, from the first moment of the 
Call to the final transfer to glory in heaven. In this 
process faith plays a large and determining part; yet 
it does not enter into the prevenient acts, but is im- 
planted in regeneration. • Thus intuitu fidei is an ex- 
pression that can be retained for convenience, if it is 
remembered how it is produced, and what acts of the 
Holy Spirit precede it. The following is Dr. Jacobs' 
carefully phrased and finely discriminating definition of 
"Predestination or Election" ("A Summary of the 
Christian Faith," page 554) : 

"It is the eternal decree, purpose or decision of 
God, according to which, out of pure grace, He de- 
termined to save, out of the fallen, condemned and 
helpless human race, each individual who He foresaw 
from eternity would, by His grace, be in Christ unto 
the end of life." 

We must go a step farther. All who hear the gospel 
Call until they understand its heavenly purport have a 
sufficient chance (gratia sufficiens) to be made willing, 
to know that God will convert and save them if they 
will let Him. There God's responsibility ends and the 
sinner's begins. If God would go farther than to awaken, 
convict, enlighten and stir the sinner's will into the 
ability to consent to being saved, He would force sal- 
vation upon him; which God will never do; for He 
always says, "Whosoever will, let him come." 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 115 

Let us add that God always deals with man as man, 
that is, as a moral agent, not as a block or machine or 
an irrational animal. Sometimes we get the impression 
— and we mean it kindly and only as a suggestion — that 
our Missouri brethren emphasize God's power more than 
they do His grace. Several times we have been tempted 
to think that, instead of sola gratia, they ought to say 
sola vis. 

Now we come to the crux of the theologians relative 
to our main theme — Rom. IX to XI inclusive. Here 
both the Calvinists and the Missouri Lutherans find their 
chief Biblical support for their peculiar views. With 
both alike the doctrine of election as drawn from this 
passage is regulative in their theology, everything else 
being made to conform; everything being dealt with 
from this view-point; whereas the rest of us Lutherans, 
as did Paul and Luther, make justification by faith the 
fundamental and regulating principle. Did we say Paul ? 
Yes, for in this very epistle he first treats of justifying 
faith, then of election.* In the examination of this 
crucial passage we must move slowly and carefully, and 
must not allow preconceived notions to exercise an undue 
influence upon us. 

First of all, we must find out what was Paul's main 
purpose in the doctrinal portion of this epistle, compris- 
ing, after the introduction, the first eleven chapters. This 
purpose is to prove to both his Jewish and Gentile 
readers that justification comes by faith alone, or rather, 



*In this respect Dr. Jacobs, in the work so often cited, 
follows the Pauline and Lutheran order. First he treats the 
whole order of redemption through Jesus Christ, then, at the 
close of his work, deals with the doctrine of the divine decrees. 



116 Election and Conversion 

by grace through faith in Jesus Christ ; this doctrine and 
fact he maintains over against the error that justi- 
fication comes by the deeds of the law and works of 
human merit. There was need for this presentation, for, 
on the one hand, there were Jews who insisted on the 
law; on the other, Gentiles who believed in the merit of 
good character and conduct. His polemic is presented 
in good homiletical order. After stating his main theme 
(1:16, 17), where he declares that the righteousness of 
God is bestowed through faith, he deals first with the 
heathen world, and shows that it is altogether steeped 
in sin, and therefore cannot save itself (1:18-32); 
secondly, he shows that both Jews and Gentiles, on 
account of their sins, are under the same condemnation 
and disability (2:1-29); thirdly, he turns to the Jews, 
and, by a most clean-cut argument, shows them that, 
while they have been highly favored of God as His 
chosen people and in being entrusted with the "oracles 
of God," yet they cannot be saved by the deeds of the 
law, simply because they are too much in the bondage 
of sin to keep it (chapters 3 and 4) ; then comes his 
matchless argument (chapters 5 to 8 inclusive) for 
justification by faith alone as opposed to all work- 
righteousness, whether of Jew or Gentile, ending with 
the wonderful apostrophe to saving and preserving love 
in the concluding verses of the eighth chapter. 

This brings us to chapters 9 to 11, where God's 
sovereignty is so strongly emphasized. But it is God's 
sovereignty exercised in accordance with His prede- 
termined order of salvation, as set forth in the previous 
chapters, namely, salvation by grace through faith. If 
not, Paul would be a very inconsistent writer and 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 117 

theologian; yet he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
What does he mean to show in these chapters? The 
relation between the Jews and the Gentiles ; that both 
are saved by grace through faith, notwithstanding God's 
varied providential dealings with them; that God's 
sovereign will and grace to save them in this way can- 
not be frustrated by anything that man can do, and 
that for carrying out this sovereign purpose He raises 
up both men and nations by a special dispensation and 
exercise of His power and grace. That this is the gist 
and point of his whole polemic is clearly set forth in 
11:19-23, where it is said that the Jews (or those of 
them who rejected Christ) were broken off "by their 
unbelief," while the saved Gentiles stand "by their faith" 
(11:20). In the next verses he teaches that, if the 
Gentiles continue not in God's goodness, they also will 
"be cut off;" but if the Jews {C continue not in their 
unbelief" they shall again "be grafted in; for God is 
able to graft them in again." Cannot any one see that 
Paul is logically and consistently carrying out his cardinal 
principle of justification by faith alone, and showing 
that all God's predeterminations in eternity and His 
providential and gracious dealings in time are bent on 
making this principle effective? 

Now, what is the exact idea of election so power- 
fully presented in these chapters? It is that God pre- 
destines and elects and raises up certain nations and 
representative individuals to carry out His sovereign 
plans, His purpose to save by grace through faith, be- 
cause that is the only right way to save the race. We 
maintain, therefore, that in these chapters no reference 
is made to the unconditional election of individuals unto 



118 Election and Conversion 

eternal salvation or unto eternal reprobation. For that 
Paul always makes conditional on faith. That God does 
raise up certain representative individuals to be the in- 
struments of His sovereign purposes, who can doubt? 
There were Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Luther. And 
why He elected these men and not others for their great 
work, who knows? That He also elected and chose 
Israel to be the special bearers of salvation to the world, 
the race from whom Christ should come according to 
the flesh, admits of no questioning. Just why He chose 
Israel and not some other nation we are willing to leave 
to Him. It certainly was not on account of Israel's 
superior "good conduct." Here the divine Potter had 
perfect power over the clay. But our faith is simple 
enough, since God has saved us by grace through faith, 
to believe that He elected those individuals and the 
Jewish nation for a wise and gracious purpose, and not 
in an absolute and arbitrary way. God has His in- 
scrutable methods and purposes, for His ways are higher 
than our ways and His thoughts higher than our 
thoughts. It is just as easy, and a good deal more 
reasonable, to believe, for example, that He, by His 
divine foresight, knew that Abraham would be the 
instrument best fitted for His purpose, and therefore 
He chose him, as it is to believe that He did just as 
He pleased without a good and sufficient reason, and 
just because He had the power ; for the Scripture teaches 
that "by faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to 
go out unto a place," etc. (Heb 11:8). The same 
principle will hold in respect to God's other agents who 
were raised up for a special mission. 

Now, with Paul's great principle in mind — salvation 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 119 

by grace through faith — let us seek the meaning of the 
most difficult sections. In 9:6-9 Paul teaches that not 
all the seed of Abraham was elected to be the bearers 
of God's saving plan; not Ishmael, a child of the flesh, 
but Isaac, the child of promise, whom Abraham and 
Sarah looked for by faith. Beautiful! Everything is 
determined and wrought out along God's plan of salva- 
tion through faith. Then there is the case of Jacob and 
Esau, 9 :10-13, which we will give in the beautiful version 
of the Twentieth Century New Testament (in this place 
a true translation, not a gloss) : "There is also the case 
of Rebecca, when she was about to bear children to our 
ancestor Isaac. For in order that the purpose of God, 
working through selection, might not fail — a selection 
depending not on obedience, but on His Call — Rebecca 
was told, before her children were born, and before 
they had done anything either right or wrong, that 'the 
elder would be a servant to the younger.' The words of 
Scripture are, T loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.' ' 

You will observe that this version does not tone 
down the election part at all, for "selection" must mean 
the same thing. Does this prove that God unconditionally 
elected Jacob unto salvation and passed Esau by? Not 
at all. It has reference solely to what Paul set out to 
show, namely, that God was electing the one who would 
be the fitter to be the ancestor of the people of God and 
of the Christ who was to be given through them. Why 
do we say this ? Because if it refers to individual salva- 
tion, then Esau must have been lost, and that simply 
because he was not elected, and we have no evidence 
that he was lost. Moreover, it would imply that all of 
Esau's descendants must have been lost, for of course 



120 Election and Conversion 

these two men, as we have shown, were treated as the 
representatives of their respective posterities. That 
God's eternal foresight and selection were correct is 
verified by the sequel, for Jacob proved to be by far the 
fitter instrument for God's redeeming plan. With all 
his faults, he was spiritual, he had visions of God, and 
grew more spiritual toward the end of his life; while 
Esau was always crass, worldly and sensuous. Just try 
to imagine God's having chosen Esau instead of Jacob 
for the divine purpose, and you will intuitively see how 
intolerable is the thought. Therefore, even in choosing 
His special agents to carry out His larger, His world- 
wide purpose, He does not elect them in an absolute and 
arbitrary way. 

With reference to God's loving Jacob and hating 
Esau, we will defer to Dr. Jacobs (Lutheran Commen- 
tary, in loco, p. 190) : "The word hatred here does not 
mean to dislike or abhor. It simply expresses the 
preference shown to one who is loved when his claims 
or interests come in conflict with the other . . . 'When 
a Hebrew compares a less with a greater love, he is 
wont to call the former hatred' (Tholuck)." References 
to Gen. 29:30, 31; Deut. 21:15. 

"That the purpose of God according to election" 
(Amer. Rev.) — the precise order here cannot be de- 
termined from the Greek. It is, iva e kaf eklogen 
prothesis, but the preposition kata may be translated 
"according to" or "by means of" (see any Greek lexicon). 
Dr. Jacobs prefers the former, and thus puts "election 
first, the purpose afterward," while the Twentieth Cen- 
tury version makes it "through." We think the latter 
the more simple and consistent, for surely the order 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 121 

in every mental process would be, the purpose first, then 
the election of the means for carrying out the purpose. 

The next passage is verses 14-16: "What shall we 
say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God 
forbid. For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on 
whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom 
I have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." 

Let us remember what Paul was proving — that God 
had not elected the Jews on account of any work or 
legal righteousness ; for they could claim no such merits ; 
therefore in their self-righteousness they had no right to 
pronounce judgment upon God's methods and ways. So 
He told them that His mercy was in His own hands 
to be shown as He pleased. But on whom does He 
always clearly show in the New Testament that He wills 
to have mercy? Right here it is, in another writing of 
Paul (1 Tim. 1 :16) : "Howbeit for this cause I obtained 
mercy that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth 
all His long-suffering, for an ensample of them that 
should thereafter believe on Him unto eternal life." 
Hundreds of passages to the same effect might be cited. 
Thus we interpret Scripture by Scripture, not by some 
subjective theological dogma. "So then it is not of him 
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that 
showeth mercy." Just as we have shown all along — 
God is the enabling source of all good, of the willing and 
the running. But remember He will not do our willing 
and running for us, after He has conferred the ability 
upon us through His mercy and grace. 

Vs. 17, 18: "In Scripture again it is said to 
Pharaoh: Tt was for this very purpose that I raised 



122 Election and Conversion 

thee to the throne, to show my power by my dealings 
with thee, and to make my name known throughout the 
world.' So, then, where God wills He takes pity, and 
where He wills He hardens the heart." 

All is clear if our minds are not too much possessed 
by the idea of a mysterious unconditional election. It 
does not say that God created Pharaoh for the purpose 
of hardening and finally condemning him, but He 
"raised him up" — that is, gave him an exalted position 
in the world — in order that He might show His power 
and grace through him. Suppose God foresaw that 
Pharaoh would harden his own heart against God (the 
Old Testament says five times that he did this before 
it says God hardened his heart, Ex. 7-9), then how just 
it would be to lift him up and make him the conspicuous 
instrument through whom God would exhibit His power ! 
If God had not done this, we never would have had the 
wonderful history of God's deliverance of Israel from 
their bondage in Egypt. Why God raised up Pharaoh 
for this special purpose, and not some other great ruler, 
we leave to God Himself. We may some time see that 
He raised up every great man for some special purpose. 

We should remember, too, that, such is God's 
economy of nature and grace, that what is intended to 
soften the heart actually hardens it, if God's overtures 
are rejected. The sun melts the wax, but hardens the 
clay. This is God's law, and so there is a sense in which 
God Himself may be said to harden men's hearts. Let 
us bear in mind, too, that in this place Paul is not deal- 
ing with the question of individual election to salvation, 
but with such conspicuous personages as He chooses to 
effect great steps and epochs in His scheme of redemp- 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 123 

tive grace. When we look at Pharaoh in this way, we 
can readily see that He was as clay in the hands of 
God's sovereign power, and, all unwittingly, aided in 
carrying out His purpose, just as Satan and Judas did 
when they brought about the crucifixion of Christ. No 
one can get ahead of God, or balk His great purposes, 
no matter how much he may abuse his free moral agency. 
This is the great comfort of elective grace. How often 
in times of trial we throw ourselves back on God's 
sovereignty ! 

Vs. 19-24: "Perhaps you will say to me: 'How 
can any one still be blamed? For who withstands His 
purpose?' I might rather ask, 'Who are you that are 
arguing with God?' Does a thing which a man has 
moulded say to him who moulded it, 'Why did you make 
me like this?' Has not the potter absolute power over 
his clay, so that out of the same lump he makes one 
thing for better, and another for common, use? And 
what if God, intending to reveal His displeasure and 
make His power known, bore most patiently with the 
objects of His displeasure, though they were fit only 
to be destroyed, so as to make known His surpassing 
glory in dealing with the objects of His mercy, whom 
He prepared beforehand for glory, and whom He called 
— even us — not only from among the Jews, but from 
among the Gentiles also !" 

It does not say that the potter created the clay, but 
simply moulded it; so it does not say that God created 
the "objects of His displeasure," especially not for 
eternal retribution; it does say that He "bore most 
patiently with" them, "though they were fit only to be 
destroyed." Here it is all plain. God bore patiently 



124 Election and Conversion 

with men like Pharaoh and others for awhile, even much 
longer than they deserved, until He saw that they were 
reprobate; then He used them to carry out His redemp- 
tive purpose in saving Israel, and to show His glory and 
power, and thus make them the bearers of salvation in 
Christ. Thus God makes the wrath of man to praise 
Him (Ps. 76:10). Even Dr. Pieper justifies God's 
dealing with Pharaoh, saying the wicked ruler got what 
he deserved. 

We have now dealt with the difficult passages in 
these chapters; and yet we wonder whether it was 
necessary to expend so much labor on them, when Paul 
himself afterward makes everything plain (9:30-32): 
"What shall we say then?" Note his own answer: 
"That the Gentiles who followed not after righteousness, 
attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which 
is of faith; but Israel, following after a law of 
righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? 
because they sought it not by faith, but as it were, by 
works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling, even 
as it is written : Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of 
stumbling and a rock of offence; and he that believeth 
on Him shall not be put to shame." There it all is, just 
as clear as crystal — just why God elects some and does 
not elect others. If we walk in this rich garden of truth 
in the light of justifying faith, which God has revealed 
to us in His Word, we shall not walk in darkness. If 
there is anything which God has not revealed, we must 
search for it, if we search at all, in the light revealed, 
not the reverse. 

If it were necessary, we should take pleasure in going 
through chapters ten and eleven, to show how Paul again 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 125 

and again maintains that Israel was rejected for a time 
on account of their lack of faith, while many of the 
Gentiles were grafted in because they did not depend 
on their good works, but solely on faith ; but we simply 
invite the reader to examine these luminous passages for 
himself. At this point we desire to quote some cogent 
and fluent sentences from one of the best theologians of 
our country who is not a Lutheran — one who has most 
stoutly defended the evangelical faith against the "new" 
theology and the rationalism of the times — Dr. Henry C. 
Sheldon, professor of theology in Boston University. 
Our selections are taken from his work, entitled "A 
System of Christian Doctrine." He says : 

"It is not to be denied that the idea of election 
or predestination is awarded considerable prominence 
in the Scriptures. It could not have been otherwise, if 
their pages were to reflect the vast sweep of the divine 
agency necessarily operative in founding and consum- 
mating the kingdom of righteousness. As the working 
out of this supreme enterprise is immeasurably above 
creaturely abilities, it would be a glaring incongruity not 
to represent the far-reaching foresight and powerful 
direction of God as fundamental to it all. In any 
reasonable view His sovereignty, considered not indeed 
as arbitrariness, but as wise authority, must be regarded 
as determining very much according to its own behests. 
The existence of the economy of grace is altogether by 
the choice of God, not of men. The stages of that 
economy from the first overtures to sinners to their in- 
vestment with the glory of a supernatural destiny, are 
properly characterized as His choice. In the adjustment 
of nations and individuals to the economy His agency 



126 Election and Conversion 

is of vast consequence. Free will in man does not 
annul the necessity of providential ordering in this matter. 
To get His gracious purpose effectively before the con- 
templation of man, God must have bearers and inter- 
preters of the same. The fittest interpreters for a given 
time and place need to be selected, and fitness for this 
vocation is not independent of foregoing discipline. 
Israel could never have fulfilled its mission in bringing 
the divine testimony to the nations without special 
discipline. Apart from the light shed by suitable ante- 
cedents, the world would not have known what to make 
of the gospel message as it fell from the lips of Christ 
and the apostles. 

"Thus the divine procedure has of necessity the 
appearance of selection or predestination, and is such 
very largely in fact. The conjunction of the prepared 
subject with the message of grace, whatever else may 
contribute thereto, falls pre-eminently under the cate- 
gory of divine ordering. 

"But how is the divine superintendence managed? 
Is it so managed as to secure the fittest instruments for 
the greatest advance of the kingdom of grace and salva- 
tion that is practicable in a world of free agents? or is 
it the sole care to bring into the divine household a 
certain number, unconditionally chosen, to the everlast- 
ing neglect or exclusion of all others? The fault of the 
Augustinian or Calvinistic predestinarian is that he 
fastens upon this ultra sense of predestination, and reads 
it into the Scriptures. Not content with the majestic 
office which is open to divine sovereignty in ordering 
the progress of the dispensation toward the grandest 
attainable result, he will have it that the absolute choice 
of God fixes the eternal destiny of all souls." 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 127 

Let us investigate another crucial passage, Eph. 
1:3-7; but do not stop there; read on through to 12-14, 
19; 2:7-9; 3:11, 12. As the sentences in the other 
versions are very long and complicated, we will use the 
Twentieth Century New Testament (a few glosses we 
will correct) : "Blessed be the God and Father of Jesus 
Christ, our Lord, who has blessed us on high with every 
spiritual blessing in Christ: for He chose us in Him 
before (pro) the foundation of the world (kosmos), that 
we might be holy and blameless in His sight, living in 
the spirit of love. He foreordained us, in His good will 
toward us, to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, 
and so to enhance that glorious manifestation of His 
loving-kindness which He gave us in the Beloved ; for in 
Him and through the shedding of His blood, we have 
redemption in the pardon of our offences . . . (Vs. 
11-13) : In Him, I say, for by our union with Him we 
became God's heritage, having been foreordained for 
this in the intention of Him who, in all that happens, 
is carrying out His own fixed purpose; that we should 
enhance His glory — we who have been the first to rest 
our hopes in Christ (Amer. Rev. : 'we who had before 
hoped in Christ'). And you, too, having heard the Word 
of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and having also 
believed, were sealed as His by the Holy Spirit which 
He had promised." 

The italicised words in verses 12 and 13 will show 
that God's foreordination and choosing were all made 
in view of sinners hoping and believing in Jesus Christ. 
Note also verse 19. 

Eph. 3 :9-12. One dogmatician, in order to prove 
his election doctrine, quoted only this much of verse 11 : 



128 Election and Conversion 

"According to the eternal purpose." But you cannot 
establish a doctrine by such fragmentary citations from 
the Bible. Using the Bible in that way simply puts a club 
into the hands of the rationalists and negative critics. 
In the previous verses Paul declares that the "hidden 
mystery has now been made known through the gospel ;" 
then he adds : "according to the eternal purpose which 
He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we 
have boldness and access in confidence through our faith 
in Him." The "eternal purpose" simply comes back to 
faith once more. Paul sticks right to his theme. 

Another text is 2 Tim. 1 :9 : "Who saved us, and 
called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, 
but according to His own purpose and grace, which were 
given us before times eternal" (old ver. : "before the 
world began"). There is no difficulty here, for the antith- 
esis is not between God's purpose and faith, but between 
His purpose and works. Here He says God's "purpose 
and grace." All we need to do is to remember that Paul 
says, "It is by faith that it might be by grace," and 
then we shall know what are God's eternal purpose and 
grace — simply to save all who will accept salvation by 
faith. The election advocates ought always to read the 
whole passage, and not to treat the Bible piece-meal ; for 
here, if they would have read on to the 12th verse, they 
would have found this sublime statement: "For I know 
Him whom I have believed, and am pursuaded that He 
is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him 
against that day." 

Consider 1 Pet. 1:1, 2: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus 
Christ, to the elect, who are sojourners . . . according 
to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 129 

of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood 
of Jesus Christ." The apostle even says here the "elect 
according to the foreknowledge of God," which shows 
that God's election is determined by His foreknowledge. 
Then He could have foreknown those who would humble 
themselves and accept His grace by simple faith and 
self-surrender. The fact is, Peter does not give much 
support to the doctrine of unconditional election, for he 
says (2 Pet. 1 :10) : "Wherefore, brethren, give the 
more diligence to make your calling and election sure; 
for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble." 

Acts 13:48: "And as the Gentiles heard this, they 
were glad, and glorified the Word of God; and as many 
as were ordained to eternal life believed." 

This passage is quoted with much confidence by 
Missourians and Calvinists alike ; and we confess that, 
when we first read it, we could not help feeling that 
here, at last, was one passage that clearly teaches the 
divine election to be the cause and antecedent of faith. 
And we decided that, if this were true, we would lay 
down our pen, and let Dr. Pieper's book go unanswered. 
But it is never safe to jump at conclusions. So we de- 
cided to look up the Greek for the word "ordained." 
Not a little was our surprise to find that it is not the 
word used in Rom. 8 :29, 30. There the word employed 
is pro-orizein, which really means to predetermine or to 
mark out beforehand ; but here the word is tetagmenoi, 
the perfect passive participle of tassein, which has 
various meanings; but our classical dictionary (Liddell 
and Scott) does not give "ordain" or "foreordain" 
among them. The fact is, there is no prefix here as 
there is in pro-orizein. Among the many meanings given 



130 Election and Conversion 

to the word tassein are "to arrange or put in order," 
"to post, station," "to order, command, give instructions," 
"to fix, settle;" not once "to ordain" or "foreordain." 
Our New Testament dictionary gives only the following 
meanings to the participle used in this verse: "arranged, 
compact, firm, steady." Now let us give a literal trans- 
lation of this part of the verse, putting the words in the 
precise order of the original: "And they believed, as 
many as were (esan, imperfect) arranged, settled, or 
made steady unto life eternal." Faith comes first, and 
then the qualifying clause, and the meaning might easily 
be that God had made them steady unto eternal life 
through their faith. There may not be the least reference 
here to an eternal decree, for there is nothing that 
so steadies the soul unto eternal life as faith in Jesus 
Christ. "And this is the victory that hath overcome the 
world, even our faith." Again, in verse 46 we see why 
Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles at Antioch of 
Pisidia ; for they said to the unbelieving Jews : "It was 
necessary that the Word of God should first be spoken 
to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge your- 
selves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the 
Gentiles." Now we do not insist on our interpretation 
of this crucial verse, but we have at least shown that 
the meaning is at present too uncertain for theologians 
to found a dogma upon, especially one that rends our 
Lutheran Church asunder. 

Next we advert to 2 Tim. 2:18-21. We note that a 
Missouri dogmatician, in trying to establish his favorite 
doctrine, quotes only a part of verse 19. If we are 
going to learn just what the Bible teaches, we must cease 
this "atomistic" use of proof-texts. Only then can we be 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 131 

workmen who "need not be ashamed, handling aright the 
Word of God." We believe in using proof-texts to 
establish doctrines. Only rationalists, negative critics 
and "new" theology men scoff at their use. But theo- 
logians must use them correctly, not torture them, nor 
disjoin them from their contexts. 

Paul was here speaking of two errorists of his time, 
Hymenaeus and Philetus : "men who concerning the 
truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is passed 
already, and overthrow the faith of some. Howbeit the 
firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, 'The 
Lord knoweth them that are His/ and, 'Let every one 
that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.' ' ; 
See how the two parts of the seal complement each other, 
the latter showing that those whom the Lord knows to 
be His are those who depart from iniquity ; and who are 
they? All those who surrender to God and let Him 
save them by faith, as is taught all through the gospel. 
The dogmatician above referred to should have read on 
through the next two verses, 20, 21 : "Now in a great 
house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but 
also of wood and of earth; and some unto honor and 
some unto dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself 
from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, 
meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good 
work." And how shall he purge himself? By washing 
in the "fountain opened in the house of David for all 
sin and uncleanness." "Purge me with hyssop, and I 
shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" 
(Ps. 51:7). 

Another sample of fragmentary Biblical quotation 
occurs when predestinarians cite Mark 13 :20 and 22, and 



132 Election and Conversion 

even omit verse 21, to say nothing of failing to refer to 
the entire context. We will refrain from that method 
of using God's Word ; we will cite enough of the context 
to show the exact setting and relation, beginning with 
verse 14: "But when ye see the abomination of des- 
olation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth 
understand), then let them that are in Judea flee unto 
the mountains ; and let him that is on the house-top not 
go down nor enter in to take anything out of his house 
. . . And pray ye that it be not in the winter." Re- 
markable that even God's eternal purpose takes into ac- 
count man's free moral agency in both action and prayer ! 
Oh, the wonderful omniscience of God ! Then verse 19 
describes the great tribulations of those days, followed 
by verses 20-23 : "And except the Lord had shortened 
the days, no flesh would have been saved; but for the 
elect's sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days. 
And if any man shall say unto you, 'Lo, here is Christ,' 
or, 'Lo, there,' believe him not; for there shall arise false 
Christ and false prophets, and shall show signs and 
wonders, that they may lead astray, if possible, the elect. 
But take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things be- 
forehand." Then in verses 33-37 : "Take ye heed ; 
watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is . . . 
lest coming suddenly, He find you asleep. And what I 
say unto you, I say unto all, Watch !" 

Does not this make perfectly clear who the "elect" 
are? Those who watch and pray, who will not believe 
the false Christs and prophets ; then God will keep them 
amid all their tribulations, and will even shorten the days 
so that their faith may not be overborne. A most beauti- 
ful commentary this on 1 Cor. 10:13: "But God is 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 133 

faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above 
that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also 
the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it." 
The Bible is a wonderful harmony, not a jumble of con- 
tradictions. With God there is no decretum absolutum, 
but He ordains and orders everything to fit into the con- 
stitution and need of the moral agents whom He has 
created and whom, when they fall into sin, He graciously 
determines to save. 

The great passage, John 6 :43-51, has also been treated 
in the same f ragmental way, only this part being quoted : 
"No man can come to me, except the Father that sent 
me draw him ;" but the whole passage following should 
be read, which runs : "And I will raise him up at the 
last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they shall 
all be taught of God.' Every one that hath heard from 
the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. Not that 
any man hath seen the Father, save He that is from God ; 
He hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
he that believeth hath eternal life ... if any man shall 
eat of this bread, he shall live forever: yea, and the 
bread which I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the 
world." 

It is plain here how the Father draws people to 
Christ, namely, by sending His Spirit with His Call : see 
"taught," "heard," "hath learned," in the above passage, 
leading to "believeth" and "shall eat." Remember, too, 
the Father "draws;" He does not "push," "pull," or 
"force ;" just as Jesus once said : "And I, if I be lifted 
up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself." 
Thanks be to Christ for the magnetic power of His 
person and His atoning grace ! 

John 10:25-30, which we will not treat piece-meal, 



134 Election and Conversion 

as is too often done: "And Jesus answered them, I 
told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in my 
Father's name, these bear witness of me. But ye believe 
not because ye are not of my sheep." Who are His 
sheep? Verse 9 of this same chapter: "I am the door; 
by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall 
go in and out, and shall find pasture." Continuing, verse 
27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 
they follow me : and I give unto them eternal life ; and 
they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them 
out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto 
me, is greater than all ; and no one is able to snatch them 
out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." 

Thanks be to God for His gracious and eternal 
election ! For thereby He makes absolutely secure those 
who put their trust in Him : "I know Him whom I have 
believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that 
which I have committed unto Him against that day" 
(2 Tim. 1:14) ; "Nay, in all these things we are more 
than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 
8:37). 

We need not dwell upon Matt. 13:13-15 and Mark 
4:10-12, for every one knows that, when people obsti- 
nately reject the overtures of God's mercy and grace, 
He will harden their hearts, dull their ears and blind 
their eyes, through the inevitable law of moral and 
spiritual degeneration, just as He hardened Pharaoh's 
heart after the wicked king had first five times hardened 
his own heart. We think now we have dealt with all 
the important passages relied on by the predestinarians. 
We think we have fought shy of none of them; if we 
have, it was an oversight; and we have tried to be fair, 
first to God's Word, then to all parties concerned. 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 135 

It will be seen that we have not referred a great 
deal to either the Formula of Concord or the dogma- 
ticians. We could not do so except in a thorough-going 
way, and that would carry us far beyond the proposed 
limits of this work. Besides, they are quoted on both 
sides by Lutheran theologians of great ability, who ac- 
cept the entire Book of Concord confessionally. The 
matter of what the Confessions teach may well be left 
to such eminent theologians as Dr. Pieper, on the one 
side, and such stalwart and capable Lutherans as Drs. 
Stellhorn and Jacobs, on the other. The General Synod, 
of which the writer is a member, esteems very highly 
the Secondary Symbols, and has officially declared them 
to be "expositions of Lutheran doctrine of great his- 
torical and interpretative value" (see Minutes of 1909, 
pages 57, 60, and of 1913, page 126) ; yet she does not 
receive them in the confessional sense, as she does the 
Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Therefore we are all 
the more willing to leave it to those who accept them 
confessionally to settle their meaning. Our main purpose 
in this thesis has been to discover and determine the 
teaching of God's inspired Word relative to the questions 
at issue. 

Personally, we appreciate the Formula of Concord 
more than we can ever tell. We acknowledge our great 
indebtedness to it in helping us to a better understanding 
of more than one Biblical doctrine and more than one 
doctrine of our Lutheran system of faith. Having 
studied it not a little, we would modestly suggest a 
thorough reading of its illuminating chapters on "The 
Righteousness of Faith Before God," for there will be 
found the co-ordinating doctrine of Lutheran theology. 



136 Election and Conversion 

Some Additional Thoughts 

We add here a few nuggets of thought that have 
come to our mind while this work has been passing 
through the press, and which therefore could not be 
inserted in their proper places: 



All God's predeterminations must be governed by 
His foreknowledge, because if He should determine any- 
thing without perfect prescience of all possible exigen- 
cies, He might make a mistake, and so might meet with 
something for which He had not provided and which 
would balk His will ; but since His foreknowledge is per- 
fect, He is able to make provision for every possible con- 
tingency. This being so, He must have known by His 
inevitable foresight who would believe in Christ to the 
end, and could therefore elect them for eternal salvation, 
and so dispose every condition and circumstance that 
nothing but their own free will would prevent their sal- 
vation. This, we believe, is Paul's idea of the assurance 
and comfort of election. 



The Missouri teaching confuses God's general and 
special decrees. By His general decree He provides sal- 
vation in Christ for all mankind, and freely offers it to 
all, while by His special decree He decides actually 
to bestow salvation upon those only who will freely 
accept the benefits offered. The two decrees blend 
in an ethical harmony. A wealthy man might set aside a 
fund for the poor of his community; but he might very 
properly stipulate that he would give help only to those 
who would accept it. 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 137 

A proper distinction should be made in the will of 
God. In some cases in Scripture it means His desire; 
in others His executed purpose. For example, when 
the Bible teaches that He wills that all men shall be 
saved (2 Pet. 3:9), it clearly means that His earnest 
desire is that all shall be saved. However, when it 
teaches that He wills to save those who will accept the 
proffered salvation, then His desire becomes an absolute 
purpose which He will surely execute. We are wont 
to use the word "will" in the same twofold way, some- 
times to express only our desire, at other times to ex- 
press our determined purpose. Here is where the true 
Lutheran view of individual election has its comfort and 
value — we know that God's purpose or will to save 
those who believe on Christ and persevere in their faith 
cannot be frustrated, no matter who or what assails 
them, for God has absolutely willed to keep them safe 
so long as they abide in Him. God's will of purpose 
can never be balked; His will of desire may be frus- 
trated by the wrong choice of His moral agents, because 
He Himself has constituted them with such a power. 



Anent Missouri's error that faith is a matter of 
merit, note this : She holds, with all other Lutherans, 
that men are justified solely through faith. Now if 
faith is a matter of merit, men must be justified on 
account of some merit of their own; which is the direct 
opposite of Paul's teaching and of all Lutheran theology. 



When our Missouri brethren quote Rom. 9:18: 
"So then He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom 
He will He hardeneth," to prove that God elects by an 



138 Election and Conversion 

inscrutable decree, we reply that the Bible teaches clearly 
on whom He wills to have mercy, namely, those who 
believe on Christ (John 3:16; Mark 16:16); also just 
as clearly whom He wills to harden, namely, such 
wicked men like Pharaoh, of whom the Bible says five 
times he hardened his own heart before it says God 
hardened it. 

Let it always be understood that true Lutheran theo- 
logians never teach that God elected any one on account 
of faith, that is, because of any merit in faith, but solely 
on account of the merits of Christ appropriated by faith. 
Faith is not a cause of election ; it is a condition of 
election. 

While, as has been said, we refrain from using the 
word "conduct" in connection with the decree of elec- 
tion, we must confess that Luther himself was not so 
chary. After saying that the offer of the gospel is for 
all, he adds: "But what is the actual result? We are 
told afterward in the gospel, 'Few are chosen;' few so 
conduct themselves toward the gospel that God is well 
pleased with them; for some hear it and do not esteem 
it; some hear it, and do not hold fast to it, refusing to 
do or suffer anything for the sake of it. Some hear it, 
but pay more attention to money and goods and 
sensuous pleasures. But that does not please God, and 
He does not take pleasure in such people. That is what 
Christ calls not to be 'chosen,' namely, not to conduct 
oneself so that God could take pleasure in him." Now 
note whom Luther designates as the elect: "But these 
are the elect, in whom God takes pleasure, who diligently 
hear the gospel, believe in Christ, prove their faith by 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 139 

their fruits, and suffer on account of it what Providence 
has ordained." No trouble about an inscrutable decree 
here. We fear Missouri cannot claim Luther. 



The Missouri Lutherans may ask: "Why cannot 
men be satisfied merely with a mysterious divine decree 
unto individual salvation? Why will they question 
further?" The reply is evident: Eternal salvation and 
eternal retribution are matters of the greatest and most 
vital personal concern to each individual. Men may 
readily leave some things to God's unrevealed will, but 
not those matters that pertain to their everlasting weal 
or woe. What God determined in eternity should be the 
constitution of matter, whether it should be made up 
of atoms or electrons or vortices, or of one or sixty 
primary elements — that makes very little difference to 
any of us ; it is merely a matter of scientific curiosity ; 
but, ah! when a decree involves a person's eternal 
blessedness or suffering, then the heart desires a "sure 
word of prophecy," a clearly revealed purpose and plan. 
Thanks be to God He has not left us to grope our way 
in darkness here : "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ;" "The wages of sin are death, but the 
gift of God is eternal life." 



According to the Formula of Concord (which the 
Missouri Synod accepts confessionally), election is not 
to be relegated to the realm of mystery, for it says : 
"This (election) is not to be investigated in the secret 
counsel of God, but is to be sought in the Word of 
God, where it is also revealed" (Jacobs' edition, p. 525). 
Also: "But the true judgment concerning predestina- 



140 Election and Conversion 

tion must be learned alone from the holy gospel concern- 
ing Christ, in which it is clearly testified that 'God hath 
concluded them all in unbelief that He might have mercy 
upon all/ and that 'He is not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance' " (p. 526). 
Again : "In Him therefore we should seek the eternal 
election of the Father, who, in His eternal divine counsel, 
determined that He would save no one except those who 
acknowledge His Son, Christ, and truly believe on Him" 
(p. 527). All of which is so plain we wonder any one 
could have ever misunderstood it. 



It has been objected that we have no right to read 
anything into the passage (Rom. 8:29) : "For whom He 
foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the 
image of His Son," etc. We are forbidden, so say 
electionists, to read it thus : "For whom He foreknew 
would have perserving faith in Christ." Reply: You 
must supply something. If you do not read it as above 
indicated, you must read it thus : "For whom He fore- 
knew that He would foreordain, them He foreordained 
to be conformed," etc., which would be tantamount to 
saying: "Whom He foreordained them He foreor- 
dained;" and that would make Paul a vapid writer. It 
would be like saying, "What I know I know," or, "What 
I see I see." If Paul meant by "foreknew" "foreor- 
dained," why did he not use the right word? 



"Without faith it is impossible to please God." 
Then when God in eternity reviewed the multitude of 
sinners still without faith, how could any of them 
"please" Him so well that He elected them to eternal 



Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 141 

residence with Him, without foreseeing that they would 
exercise faith? 

With their strange, mechanical and unpsychological 
ideas of free will, the Concordia dogmaticians cannot 
understand how one man can, by his own option, choose 
to let God save him, while another, also by his own 
option, rejects God's mercy. Hence they posit a mystery 
in God's eternal decree to explain the difference. With 
their mechanical and unethical views of faith, from 
which they excise every element of freedom, they do 
not see how one man can (though enabled by prevenient 
grace) freely and savingly believe on Christ, while an- 
other man, even though similarly called, refuses to be- 
lieve. Hence again they go back to God's eternal counsel 
for the solution. Yet they declare that he is not "a good 
theologian" who seeks an explanation ! And the strange 
thing is, they try to account for a psychological mystery 
by creating a theological one. Now the Bible simply 
takes the practical, common-sense view of man's psychi- 
cal constitution, treats him as a moral and responsible 
agent, and offers him the great boon of salvation on the 
simple terms of repentance and faith. The ability to 
repent and believe He confers as soon as man, after 
his awakening, is willing to let God save him from his 
dire estate. Just so we who accept the plain and simple 
gospel preach to sinners to "come and take of the water 
of life freely," without troubling ourselves about the 
psychological mysteries involved; just as we see without 
bothering much about the mysteries of optics, and breathe 
without understanding all the mysteries of respiration, 
and eat without trying to figure out all the unsolved prob- 
lems of digestion and assimilation. 



X 

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH SEPARATISM? 

OUR purely doctrinal discussion is now finished. 
But we have still more in view in the publication 
of this book. We want to see whether we cannot help 
along the cause of Lutheran fellowship, comity and co- 
operation. The Synodical Conference is separatistic. 
It will not fellowship with any other body of Lutherans, 
and that mainly because of its particularistic dogmas of 
election and conversion, which other Lutheran bodies 
cannot accept. The Missourians even refused to have 
public prayer with the brethren of Ohio and Iowa at 
the Free Conference at Detroit. To engage in public 
prayer with their brethren they thought would, in some 
way, compromise their principles. In our closing 
chapter we shall try to show that Lutherans can, if they 
will, have spiritual fellowship and engage in united 
practical work for Christ and His kingdom, without in- 
sisting on absolute agreement on all doctrines, especially 
those that belong to the department of difficult and re- 
fined dogmatic distinctions. However, before we come 
to our final chapter, we must try to remove a difficulty. 
In order to uphold their ecclesiastical exclusiveness, 
our Missouri brethren cite a number of Scripture pass- 
ages. They are given in Dr. J. L. Neve's account of 
the Free Conference of Missouri, Ohio and Iowa at 
Detroit in 1904, where the Missourians declined to en- 
gage in public prayer with their brethren. Dr. Neve has 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 143 

taken them from a writing of Rev. J. Grosse, a repre- 
sentative of the Missouri Synod. We shall examine 
them, to see whether they are relevant. 

First, Matt. 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, who 
come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are 
ravening wolves." 

However, the passage is not apropos, because the 
Ohio and Iowa brethren and the rest of us Lutherans 
are not "wolves in sheep's clothing," nor are we "in- 
wardly ravening wolves." That applies only to the "cor- 
rupt trees," "to be hewn down and cast into the fire," 
and to those "that work iniquity," referred to in the 
succeeding verses. The passage is not relevant. 

The next passage: Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech 
you, brethren, mark them that are causing divisions and 
occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye 
have learned : and turn away from them." 

Here is another specimen of the disconnected use 
of Scripture which has caused so much separatism and 
strife in the Christian Church. If the Missouri brethren 
had read the next verse, they would have seen the kind 
of characters to whom Paul referred : "For they that are 
such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly ; 
and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the 
hearts of the innocent." Such grossness, selfishness and 
guile cannot be applied to the Lutherans whom our 
Missouri friends exclude from pulpit and altar fellow- 
ship. If the Missouri brethren had read the previous 
verses, they would have found Paul saying: "All the 
churches of Christ salute you." It does not seem from 
this loving salutation that Paul wanted to build up a 
wall of separation among the churches of his day. 



144 Election and Conversion 

But Rom. 16:17 (see above) might just as well be 
used by other Lutherans against the Missouri brethren: 
"Mark them that are causing divisions and occasions of 
stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have 
learned ; and turn away from them." Well might other 
Lutherans say, if they wished to do so, that it is Missouri 
that is "causing divisions and occasions of stumbling;" 
they are the ones who are separating themselves from 
others by their peculiar doctrines. They might also say 
that it is Missouri that is teaching doctrines "contrary 
to the doctrine which ye have learned ;" for, if we under- 
stand history, the Missouri Synod did not always teach 
this strange doctrine of predestination, but it was intro- 
duced later by Dr. Walter and his coadjutors. This is 
what made the trouble ; this was why some excellent men 
now in the Ohio Synod could not remain with it; this is 
why men like Allwardt, Ernst, Doermann, Holtermann, 
and others were driven from the Missouri Synod and 
formed the Northwestern District, which united with the 
Joint Synod. So, you see, everything depends on who 
the persons are to whom the words of Paul can properly 
be applied. To our way of thinking, they cannot be 
applied to either party by the other. When Christian 
men, who believe the Bible, accept Christ by faith, and 
try to follow Him in sincerity and truth, get into a 
dispute, they ought not to fling Scripture passages that 
would apply only to heretics, rank liberalists and outright 
unbelievers and sinners. Misapplying Biblical passages 
of Scripture is the method of sectarians, not of true and 
loyal Christian Lutherans. 

Another favorite passage of exclusivism is 1 Cor. 
1 :10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 145 

of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same 
thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but 
that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the 
same judgment." 

In this instance we again see the harm that is done 
to the body of Christ by the piece-meal method of hand- 
ling the Word of God, as if it were composed of disjecta 
membra, instead of being a harmonious and organic 
unity. Read on a few verses and you will see the kind 
of strife and divisions in the Corinthian Church which 
Paul was rebuking: In verse 12 he tells them that he 
had been told that there were contentions among them ; 
then he goes on : "Now this I mean, that each one of 
you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Cephas ; and I of 
Apollos ; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? Was Paul 
crucified for you? Or were ye baptized into the name 
of Paul ?" And then he proceeds to show the Corinthians 
that Christ and the gospel are the all-important matters, 
and not the mere human instruments through whom they 
are given and proclaimed. The simple fact is, the Cor- 
inthians were doing what churches so often do today — 
they were quarreling about their preachers, thinking 
more of them than of Christ. This was what Paul was 
rebuking, not a difference of opinion on some such diffi- 
cult doctrines as the eternal divine decrees or the relation 
of grace to human responsibility. Besides, the passage 
might just as easily be applied by other Lutherans to 
the Missouri brethren as the opposite, for they ought to 
try just as much as the rest of us to "be perfected to- 
gether in the same mind and in the same judgment." 
One party in the controversy should not claim all these 
passages in their favor. They may be quoted by both 
parties with equal relevancy, if they are to be used at all. 



146 Election and Conversion 

Our next citation is 2 Cor. 6:17, 18: "Wherefore, 
come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, 
saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will 
receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall 
be to me sons and daughters, saith the Almighty." 

No less inept is this selection. Even the passage 
itself would preclude its application to Missouri's fellow- 
Lutherans, for it says, "Touch no unclean thing." Are 
other Lutherans to be regarded as an "unclean thing?" 
But the preceding verses define precisely the kind of peo- 
ple from whom the Corinthian Church was to "be sep- 
arate" (verses 14-16) : "Be not unequally yoked with un- 
believers." Are the rest of us Lutherans "unbelievers?" 
If so, why are we spending our days and often our 
nights in fighting infidelity, rationalism and negative 
criticism? "For what fellowship have righteousness and 
iniquity?" We know that Missouri is too charitable to 
apply the term "iniquity" to the Lutherans from whom 
she differs. "Or what communion hath light with dark- 
ness?" Would Missouri class all Lutherans outside of 
her own ecclesiastical fold as "darkness?" "And what 
concord hath Christ with Belial?" Who is "Belial" in 
the present controversy? "Or what portion hath a be- 
liever with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a 
temple of God with idols?" The rest of us Lutherans 
surely are not idolaters. Thus you see that the above 
citation is not pertinent. 

And this reminds us of an incident. Years ago we 
happened to go into a tent in which one of the rankest 
sects of the day was holding a meeting, one of the noisy, 
shouting kind. They were the so-called "holiness" 
people, such as thought they were perfectly sanctified. 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 147 

How they did boast of their superior spiritual attain- 
ments ! One of them declared that they had gotten so 
far "beyond all other so-called Christians that they 
couldn't see them any more with a spy-glass !" An ex- 
pression that seemed to please and amuse the sanctifi- 
cationists greatly. And we remember that one of their 
favorite Bible citations was this very one, "Come ye out 
from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." 
It was their sedes doctrinae. In our early ministry we 
were forced into more or less controversy with another 
fanatical sect called "Come-outers." This same passage 
was also their stock in trade. 

Another much-used passage among Missouri Luth- 
erans is Eph. 4 :3-6 : "Giving diligence to keep the unity 
of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Our Missouri 
brethren should try to obey this injunction, just as all 
of us should. "There is one body and one Spirit, even 
as also ye were called in one hope of your calling, one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, 
who is over all, and through all, and in all." 

Here is an urgent en joinder upon all believers to be 
united, and we hope that all Lutherans, Missourian and 
the rest, will heed it. One party needs it just as much 
as the others. Instead of being an argument for separa- 
tism, it is the strongest kind of an argument for union 
and concord. We all have "one hope," namely, hope in 
the Lord Christ ; "one Lord," the same Christ ; "one 
faith," posited in the same Christ ; "one baptism," for 
the remission of sins in the name of Christ ; "one God and 
Father of us all." In His blessed name, then, why are 
we not all one body? If all Lutherans who are disposed 
to be divisive would read what Paul says in the verse 



148 Election and Conversion 

preceding the above quotation, they would see how unity 
is to be conserved: "With all lowliness and meekness, 
with longsufTering, forbearing one another in love ;" 
then, "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit 
in the bond of peace." A good preachment, and needed 
by all parties. 

The next citation is 1 Tim. 5 :22 : "Lay hands 
hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other man's 
sins ; keep thyself pure." 

Like the rest, this passage is not applicable. It 
refers to association with sinners in a sinful way, not 
with disciples who trust and love the Lord Jesus and 
try to follow Him in holiness of life. It is not likely that 
our good Missouri brethren would become contaminated 
by having fellowship with other Lutherans, for when it 
comes to purity of life, one branch of the Lutheran 
Church has no occasion for saying of the rest, "Lord, 
we thank thee that we are not as other men are." 

We give still another sample of the fragmentary 
use of Scripture: Titus 3:10: "A factious man, after 
a first and second admonition, refuse." 

First, it all depends on who is the factious man, 
whether he is the separatist or the one who is willing 
to fellowship. One might be permitted to think that 
the man who does not insist so much on his own views, 
but is willing to accord to others some liberty of opinion, 
would be the less factious, not to put it any stronger. 
But the passage is torn from its connection, and is there- 
fore not pertinent to the situation; for the next verse, 
separated from the tenth by only a semi-colon, reads : 
"knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, 
being self-condemned." In the days of discussion at 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 149 

Watertown, Milwaukee and Detroit, we do not think 
that the Ohio and Iowa brethren were sinners above 
others, or that they were "self-condemned." All that 
we have ever spoken with, or whose writings we have 
perused, seemed to think that they had maintained their 
own position with a fair degree of success. But read 
the preceding verses, beginning with the 8th: "Faithful 
is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that 
thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have 
believed God may be careful to maintain good works. 
These things are good and profitable unto you ; but shun 
foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and 
fightings about the law ; for they are unprofitable and 
vain." Now how would Missouri like it if we were to 
apply these trenchant sayings to them and their disposi- 
tion to divide the Church on questions that create schism ? 
She would say we were quoting Scripture irrelevantly. 
So we will not be so ungenerous, for she is in earnest, 
and does not believe the doctrines for which she is con- 
tending are "foolish questionings," etc. No more do we 
believe that the whole passage has any reference to other 
Lutherans who are just as sincere, intelligent and loyal. 
The last passage cited by Mr. Grosse is Exod. 
12:43-48: "And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, 
This is the ordinance of the Passover: there shall not a 
foreigner eat thereof . . . And when a stranger shall 
sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to Jehovah, 
let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come 
near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born 
in the land : but no uncircumcised person shall eat 
thereof. One law shall be unto him that is home-born, 
and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." 



150 Election and Conversion 

It seems almost like legalism to go back to the old 
ceremonial law to find a proof-text for exclusiveness 
among Lutherans, but we suppose the Missouri brethren 
would say that the same principle would apply to the 
Lord's Supper and other forms of Christian fellowship 
as applied to the Hebrew feast of the Passover. Let 
us go on that supposition. Would the Missourians say 
all the Lutherans who do not agree with them are 
uncircumcisedf Well, then, we ought not to go to the 
Lord's Supper at all, not even in our own churches. Of 
course, we are speaking of the spiritual circumcision, for 
Paul says (Rom. 2:28, 29) : "For he is not a Jew who 
is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is 
outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one in- 
wardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but 
of God." Now what is it to be circumcised in heart? 
Paul teaches it in his letter to the Romans, whose doc- 
trinal portion, the first eleven chapters, is devoted to an 
exposition and defense of justification by faith alone. 
Therefore to have true faith in Christ is to have the 
circumcision of the heart. We maintain that all true 
Lutherans accept Christ by faith ; therefore, being of 
the true spiritual circumcision, they have a right to the 
Lord's table. Luther's Catechisms, the Augsburg Con- 
fession and the Formula of Concord teach the same 
doctrine. More than that, all true Lutherans believe 
that they receive Christ's body and blood in the 
Eucharist, and this gives them additional right to come 
to the blessed sacrament. 

Thus we have seen that none of the Scripture pass- 
ages quoted to uphold Lutheran separatism and division 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 151 

are relevant. A large number of passages, we believe, 
might be cited to prove that division and strife are 
wrong, and that mutual love, forbearance and concord 
are the desire of Jesus Christ. Those proof-texts our 
friends of the Missouri camp never quote. Let us note 
a few: John 10:16: "And other sheep I have which 
are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they 
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock and 
one shepherd." It would appear as if Christ said this 
expressly to prevent the disciples before Him from 
thinking that they were the only true sheep — that is, to 
preclude their becoming exclusive. Does one part of the 
Lutheran Church comprise all the sheep who hear the 
Good Shepherd's voice? 

Luke 9:49, 50 (cf. Mark 9:38-40): "And John 
answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils 
in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth 
not with us. But Jesus said unto him. Forbid him not: 
for he that is not against you is for you." Here John's 
narrowness, his sectarianism, was upbraided ; for he 
seemed to think that the chief characteristic of a disciple 
was to "follow" in the immediate company of Christ and 
His apostles; but Jesus in rebuking him taught all of 
us that the chief thing is to be able to cast out devils in 
His name. We leave it to the judgment of every reader 
whether all the branches of the Lutheran Church in this 
country (Missouri included) have not been doing such 
work in baptizing children, teaching them afterward the 
way of salvation, and in bringing thousands of adult 
sinners to Christ. 

Let us note some passages in Christ's intercessory 
prayer (John 17:20-23) : "Neither for these only do I 



152 Election and Conversion 

pray, but for them also that believe on me through their 
word ; that they may all be one ; even as thou, Father, 
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in 
us ; that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 
And the glory which thou hast given me I have given 
unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 

1 in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected 
into one ; that the world may know that thou didst send 
me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me." In 
view of the fact that Christ has millions of Lutheran 
disciples in this country, we think the above prayer ought 
to be fulfilled among them ; and if it were, what a power 
for Christ and His truth they would be! One of the 
crying criticisms of the Lutheran Church today is her 
manifold and mutually exclusive divisions. 

In Matt. 23 :8-12 our Lord says : "But be not called 
Rabbi ; for one is your Teacher, and all ye are brethren. 
And call no man your father on the earth; for one is 
your Father, even He who is in heaven. Neither be ye 
called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. But 
he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled ; 
and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted." 
Will not all this apply to the Lutheran Church in 
America? We all acknowledge Christ, and Him alone, 
as our Master ; then are we not all brethren ? 

There are a number of passages like 1 Tim. 1 :4, 6 :4, 

2 Tim. 2 :23 and Titus 3 :9, which warn against "foolish 
and ignorant questionings that gender strife;" but by 
reading the entire context it will be seen that they cannot 
be applied either to our Missouri brethren or to those 
who differ from them, because the great doctrines in 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 153 

dispute, while they may be said, in a sense, to "gender 
strife," are not to be classed among the "foolish and 
unlearned questionings." Therefore we cannot make 
use of them on either side of the debate. However, we 
believe that such passages as the following are imme- 
diately applicable to the Lutheran situation in America. 
Rom. 12 :4, 5 : "For even as we have many members 
in one body, and all members have not the same office: 
so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and 
severally members one of another." The whole of 1 Cor. 
12 is extremely pertinent, especially verses 12 and 13 : 
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and 
all the members of the body, being many, are one body ; 
so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized 
into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond 
or free ; and were all made to drink of one Spirit." 
Rom. 15:5-7: "Now the God of patience and of com- 
fort grant you to be of the same mind one with another 
according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord ye may 
with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, even 
as Christ also received you, to the glory of God the 
Father." An injunction like this cannot be set aside 
without virtually un-Christianizing those who are ex- 
cluded; for we Lutherans all do with one mouth glorify 
God, giving Him and Him alone the praise for our 
salvation. 2 Cor. 13:11: "Finally, brethren, farewell. 
Be perfected ; be comforted ; be of the same mind ; live 
in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with 
you." Eph. 4:1-6 has already been quoted, but here we 
call attention to this: "Giving diligence to keep the 
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Note Phil. 



154 Election and Conversion 

2:2-4: "Make full my joy that ye be of the same mind, 
having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind ; 
doing nothing through faction or vainglory, but in 
lowliness of mind, each counting other better than him- 
self ; not looking each of you to his own things, but each 
of you also to the things of others." This is most im- 
pressive, and should be well pondered. 1 Pet. 3 :8 : 
"Finally be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as 
brethren, tender-hearted, humble-minded." 

Consider a few passages that enjoin peace among 
God's people : "So then let us follow after things that 
make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one 
another" (Rom. 14:19). While this refers specifically 
to the wrangles over meats offered to idols, it still may 
stand as a good general motto for the Church. "But 
we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among 
you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, 
and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their 
works' sake. Be at peace among yourselves" (1 Thess. 
5:12, 13). "But flee youthful lusts, and follow after 
righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on 
the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and ignorant 
questions refuse, knowing that they gender strife ; and 
the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle toward 
all, apt to teach, forbearing," etc. (2 Tim. 2:22-26). 
"Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification 
without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). 
"If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace 
with all men" (Rom. 12:18). This is a capital passage, 
for while it does not ask of us impossibilities, and in- 
dicates that we must not be indifferent to the truth, it 
also shows clearly that we should let the idea of peace 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 155 

be a potent motive in our lives ; that we should be just 
as irenic as it is possible for us to be; that we should 
love peace better than polemics. "The wisdom that is 
from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to 
be entreated," etc. (Jas. 3:17). While purity is put 
first, peaceableness is put second. 

How often the apostles deprecated contentions, 
divisions and unnecessary disputes! In 1 Cor. 1:10, 11, 
3:3, 11:18, and Rom. 16:17 Paul rebukes the factious 
spirit. Of course, all parties may apply these passages to 
their opponents, but that would not be fair ; we should all 
conscientiously consider whether they will not apply to 
ourselves; perhaps, after all, some of us may have been 
more anxious to vindicate our views than to show forth 
the glory of God. 

The whole of Rom. 14 might well be read in this 
connection. Take a few verses (1-5) : "But him that 
is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of 
scruples (margin, to doubtful disputations). One man 
hath faith to eat all things ; but he that is weak eateth 
herbs. Let not him that eateth set at naught him that 
eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him 
that eateth ; for God hath received him. Who art thou 
that judgest the servant of another? To his own lord 
he standeth or falleth . . . One man esteemeth one day 
above another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let 
each man be fully assured in his own mind." Vs. 10-13 : 
"But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou 
again, why dost thou set at naught thy brother ? For we 
shall all stand before the judgment seat of God ... So 
then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. 
Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but 



156 Election and Conversion 

judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block 
in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling." Paul 
was here speaking about meats and drinks and ceremonial 
observances, but the general principle should be taken 
to heart by us Lutherans, to see whether we have not 
been more given to judging, criticising and excluding 
than looking for the things that make for peace and 
good will. 

Those who are interested in our Lutheran polemics 
will not need many Biblical citations on Christian love. 
They are scattered all through the New Testament, much 
more being said about love among brethren than about 
contending for the faith, even though that is very, very 
important. Note just a few leading passages to refresh 
our memories. John 15 :12 : "This is my commandment, 
that ye love one another, even as I have loved you ;" also 
17: "These things I command you, that ye may love 
one another." Rom. 13 :8 : "Owe no man anything save 
to love one another ; for he that loveth his neighbor hath 
fulfilled the whole law." 1 Pet. 2:17: "Honor all men. 
Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." 
1 Pet. 3 :8 : . . . "Loving as brethren, tender-hearted, 
humble-minded." 1 John 1:11: "For this is the message 
which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love 
one another;" 14: "We know that we have passed out 
of death into life, because we love the brethren;" 4:7: 
"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God; 
and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and 
knoweth God;" 11: "Beloved, if God so loved us, we 
ought also to love one another;" 12: "No man hath 
beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God 
abideth in us, and His love is perfected in us." Here 
belongs the whole of 1 Cor. 13. 



Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 157 

Look at Psalm 133 : "Behold, how good and how 
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity . . . 
For there Jehovah commandeth the blessing, even life 
forevermore." Parallel passages, Gen. 13:8; Heb. 13:1. 

We hope the foregoing will not be looked upon as 
sentimentality and preachment. It is meant for ourself 
as much as for our brethren. Well are we aware that 
love, which is an emotion, cannot decide the truth in 
matters of doctrine, for that function belongs to the 
intellect; yet there can be no doubt that if the principle 
of love were always potent in the hearts of men, there 
would be much less disputation, and that which becomes 
absolutely necessary for the sake of truth, would be 
conducted in a much kindlier spirit than has marked 
many of the controversies of the Christian Church. 
This part of our discussion will be closed with several 
pregnant selections from 1 Cor. 13, according to the 
beautiful Old Version : "Charity suffereth long, and is 
kind; ... is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil . . . 
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three ; and 
the greatest of these is charity." 

To clinch and finish the whole Biblical argument: 
since such Christian virtues as faith, hope, love, brotherly 
kindness, forbearance, unity and peace are enjoined so 
much more frequently in the Holy Scriptures than con- 
tending for doctrine, they ought to occupy a much higher 
place than they do in our Lutheran Church ; they ought 
to make us more generous and less critical ; they ought to 
make us more anxious to find common ground than 
grounds of difference; and in cases where discussion 
becomes absolutely necessary, they should pervade it all 
with their gentle and magnanimous spirit. 



XI 
THE QUESTION OF LUTHERAN UNITY 

THIS book has been written with two primary 
objects in view: First, to see if any new light 
might be shed on the doctrines in debate; second, to 
lead up to some humble, and we hope helpful, sugges- 
tions on the burning question of Lutheran unity. 

It may be thought by some that, to engage first in 
a doctrinal discussion, is a poor way to promote Lutheran 
fellowship and co-operation. That objection, however, 
would not be well taken. We Lutherans are too much 
concerned for "the pure doctrine" (die reine Lehre), 
and rightly so, to imagine we can ever get together with- 
out a full and frank discussion of our doctrinal differ- 
ences. To ignore what we hold to be the truth, and 
make compromises before we see a good and substantial 
basis for union, would be entirely foreign to the genius 
of the Lutheran Church. From a Lutheran view-point 
it would be premature and ill-advised. Such a plan may 
do for that doctrinally indeterminate and indifferent 
movement known as the "Federal Council of Churches 
of Christ in America," but it is not feasible for Luth- 
erans. By the candid discussion of doctrine, as well as 
other vital matters, we hope the atmosphere will become 
more and more clarified, so that we may be brought to 
see eye to eye. At all events, a mechanical and forced 
union will not satisfy us Lutherans. 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 159 

Still another motive impelled us to take up this dis- 
cussion : we could not, in all good conscience, let Dr. 
Pieper's book go unchallenged, as if it were the only 
view that could be tolerated in the Lutheran Church. 
Suppose the whole Lutheran Church should, for the sake 
of union, or for any other reason or reasons, go over 
to that view, and should put it in a creed or platform; 
then suppose that by and by, after more thorough investi- 
gation of the Scriptures, that view should be found to 
be erroneous — what then? No; it is better not to try 
to force a union on these deep and difficult doctrines. 
In the present state of the discussion they should be left 
in the sphere of Lutheran liberty for still further study. 
We already agree on all the vital doctrines, as we shall 
point out a little later, and so can afford to leave some 
recondite matters to individual judgment. 

Our presentation shows, we think, that the truth 
is not all on one side; that much Scripture can be cited 
and many sound arguments adduced for the views of 
election that are held by most Lutherans outside of the 
Synodical Conference. This proves that it is useless 
to talk about Lutheran union solely on that body's con- 
ception of the doctrines of election and conversion. 
And why should our Missouri brethren insist upon their 
views as the only terms of union? Do not the rest of 
us have access to the Bible and the Confessions as well 
as they? We are sure that such insistence on Missouri's 
part will indefinitely postpone the day of Lutheran union. 
Is there not "a more excellent way?" 

Take a survey of the situation : The Synodical 
Conference, the Iowa Synod, the General Council, the 
Joint Synod of Ohio, the Norwegian Synod, and the 



160 Election and Conversion 

United Synod of the South, all accept confessionally 
the whole Book of Concord; and they do so sincerely. 
"What doth hinder" their being united? What do they 
separate on? Very largely on the doctrine of election 
and conversion. The Conference insists that her view 
is the only true and possible one. Her unmovable stand 
on these matters leads her to exclusiveness and isolation. 
Why this constant insistence on these refined theological 
distinctions? We believe that the Lutheran bodies 
named would be willing to allow Missouri to believe as 
she pleased on these doctrines, providing she would not 
make them the condition of fellowship and co-operation. 
Therefore we fear that the responsibility for the divided 
state of the bodies named lies largely at the door of the 
Synodical Conference. In view of all that can be said 
and has been said on the other side, is she willing longer 
to carry the burden of responsibility? If Christ wants 
all His disciples to be one, does He not want His millions 
of Lutheran disciples to be one? 

And why should Lutherans be divided on par- 
ticularistic views of the doctrines of election and con- 
version, so long as they all hold to justification by faith 
alone, sola gratia and universalis gratia? The mooted 
doctrines are profound and difficult. By their very 
nature they are so. Election goes back into eternity, 
and tries to work out the nature of the divine decrees. 
Is it right for poor, finite mortals to think that they can 
so define what God did before the foundation of the 
world as to exclude and un-Lutheranize other Christians 
who cannot see precisely as they do? The same is true 
of conversion. All of us believe that men must be 
converted; that God alone can and must convert them; 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 161 

that they are saved purely by grace. All of us repudiate 
both Synergism and Pelagianism. Then what causes 
schism? Why, the attempt to determine that fine line 
where divine causality and human freedom meet — a line 
that no man, however incisive, can definitely mark out 
to the satisfaction of all others. Thus it will be seen 
that we are causing schism in the body of Christ by 
wrangling over questions that are too deep for us. From 
the time of Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz down to the 
present, the keenest Christian minds have been trying to 
figure out these profound doctrines ; yet they could not 
in the past, and they cannot now, see alike. Think of 
the days that were spent by the Missourians and the 
anti-Missourians at the conferences at Watertown, Mil- 
waukee and Detroit, in 1903-4, in contending over these 
mooted doctrines, with theological giants on both sides, 
and yet no agreement could be reached. Why continue to 
insist on a particularistic view ? Must every question be a 
closed question before we can come together in the unity 
of the spirit and the bond of peace? Even some of the 
Missouri theologians have had shades of difference 
among themselves, yet they tolerated one another. Why 
not just slightly increase the boundaries of Lutheran 
toleration ? 

Let us see why it is neither right nor necessary to 
divide the Church on these theological subtleties. Both 
parties are equally sincere and earnest in accepting the 
Bible as the inspired Word of God. They would make 
common cause against rationalism and the negative 
criticism. Both parties are equally devoted to all the 
Symbolical Books ; both quote them again and again to 
substantiate their different views. In reading Stellhorn, 



162 Election and Conversion 

Jacobs and Pieper we have been much impressed with the 
fact that all of them quote from the same articles of 
the Formula. And again there is about equal scholarship 
on both sides. All you need to do is to note their lavish 
quotations from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, and 
other languages, and their copious references to many 
matters that belong to the domain of scholarship, to be 
convinced that in the way of cultural training and skill 
they are protagonists worthy of one another's steel. Now, 
under these circumstances, can they not see that the 
doctrines about which they contend are of too abstruse 
and academic a character to be made the gravaman of 
division? Why not agree to differ as brethren of the 
same household of faith? 

Note another matter — how labored and extended 
are the arguments that each side employs to uphold its 
views ; how winding and intricate are the logical pro- 
cesses, with more than one effort to hang an opponent 
on the horns of a dilemma ; how much fine and scholarly 
exegesis must be used; how many quotations from the 
learned languages ; pages upon pages of the finest dis- 
tinctions, amounting in some cases almost to hair-split- 
ting! Is it right, we repeat, for the dogmaticians to 
divide the Church, and keep her divided, on such difficult 
and erudite questions? If the Missourians should say 
that their theology is very simple; that they just accept 
the pure, plain Word of God; our reply is: Then why 
all this labored argument, all these scholastic terms, all 
these refined distinctions, in order to try to convince the 
other party? And still they have not convinced their 
opponents, who accept the Word of God with just as 
implicit faith as they — the Missourians — do. This very 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 163 

fact proves that these doctrines belong to the subtleties 
of dogmatics. We do not ask Missouri to give up her 
views, but simply not to make their acceptance by others 
the terms of fellowship and union. Cannot Missouri 
be as generous as the rest of us ? 

Another matter worth considering: So many 
people stumble over what is called rabies theologicorum, 
the anger of the theologians. Many good people think 
that the theologians are mostly to blame for our divisions. 
They cannot understand what all the controversy is 
about. We have heard more than one layman say that 
the Lutheran Church could be united but for the 
theological professors, who, they contend, are engaged 
in hair-splitting, in trying to make distinctions where 
there are no differences. Of course, they do not under- 
stand our sincere concern for the truth, nor can they 
always discern the sharp edge of dangerous heresy; just 
as, not long ago, a prominent university professor scoffed 
at the Nicene Council for "wasting weeks over the dis- 
cussion of a word !" He was unable to see that the very 
heart of the Christian religion was then and there 
involved. However, we maintain that our Lutheran 
theologians should give as little occasion as possible for 
such criticism, and should be more anxious for unity 
than for particularistic views of doctrine that do not 
involve the foundations of the evangelical and Lutheran 
faith. 

Anent the present discussion we are sure this 
criticism will be passed by many sincere and earnest 
people in the Lutheran Church : that while we Lutherans 
are spending our time and strength in controversy over 
the old and always divisive doctrines of election and 



164 Election and Conversion 

conversion, some of the denominations are busy doing 
practical work, gathering people into their folds, and 
even stealing some of our sheep. Whether the criticism 
will be just or not, let us reduce to the minimum the 
occasion for making it. Every time there is a quarrel in 
the Lutheran Church the proselyting sects rejoice and 
take advantage of it. 

Do not think for a moment that we would want to 
shut off theological investigation and discussion. That 
would be inane. Whenever a Church gets to the point 
that it is indifferent to pure doctrine, gives up depth of 
thinking, and lightly regards thorough-going scholarship, 
it will soon become superficial and consequently decadent. 
Trees that root shallowly are not enduring. Reverent 
research and exchange of views will lead to still deeper 
understanding and appreciation of the vast mines of 
Biblical truth. However, polemics, accompanied by more 
or less stress of feeling, is not so apt to be judicial and 
unbiassed. Therefore we believe that, if these divisive 
questions could be left to individual liberty, and were 
not placed in the list of essentials, they could be discussed 
with greater calmness, less heat of controversy, less con- 
cern for sectarian victory, and thus the truth itself would 
have freer course. 

In the interest of Lutheran comity, we desire here 
to insert a remark, which we hope will prove helpful. 
On page 146 Dr. Pieper says : "To state the matter 
concretely, that part of the Lutheran Church which has 
hitherto taught that the converting and saving grace of 
God is governed by the correct or good conduct of man, 
and has in such conduct discovered the ground of ex- 
planation for the discretio personarum, must surrender 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 165 

that teaching without any reservation whatever. If this 
is not done, all unity between the parties to the contro- 
versy is specious." 

This sounds very like an ultimatum. But we hope 
Dr. Pieper will not be too rigid and insistent. How- 
ever, on this particular point he has much truth on his 
side. Therefore we would venture to suggest and advise 
some yielding on the part of some of the anti-Missouri- 
ans. It certainly does seem to be a dangerous mode of 
expression to say that God has elected any man in view of 
"correct or good conduct," or that "good conduct" in 
any way prepares him for conversion. Whatever the 
parties who have used this mode of expression may have 
meant by it, every one can see, after a moment's atten- 
tion, that it squints toward work-righteousness and human 
merit — a heresy that should be rigidly excluded from the 
Lutheran Church. So let us all agree to avoid and reject 
this "good conduct" method of expression, and also the 
thought that it connotes. It is different, however, when 
you say electio intuitu ftdei, for, as we have shown, in 
faith there is no merit, and it excludes all ideas of merit ; 
and therefore the doctrine of sola gratia is sacredly pre- 
served. Now, if the one party will give up the term 
"good conduct," could not Dr. Pieper and his synodical 
brethren join them in fellowship on the basis of justifi- 
cation by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, and the 
genuine offer of grace and salvation to all, with liberty 
on any peculiar view of election and conversion ? Why not 
hoist the white flag and declare peace ? 

But there are some branches of the Lutheran Church 
that do not stand on quite the same confessional basis 
as the bodies previously named. We refer to the General 



166 Election and Conversion 

Synod and some of the Scandinavian bodies. What is 
to be our share and position in the proposed plan for 
Lutheran unity? We should like to be included in the 
project. We ought not to be left out in the cold. We 
might help the good cause along. (Remember, just now 
we are thinking more of unity, fellowship and co-opera- 
tion than of organic union). All of us accept, ex animo, 
the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our creed — quia, 
not quatenus — and Luther's Small Catechism as a book 
of instruction. Now, since all genuine Lutherans in this 
country accept the Augustana, would not that be the most 
satisfactory basis for Lutheran comity and co-operation? 
There all could stand. And, after all, the Augsburg 
Confession contains the seed and essence of the Lutheran 
faith, all concisely and lucidly set forth; the other Sym- 
bols are only the development of these seminal principles. 
Why would it not be feasible for all Lutherans to ack- 
nowledge all other Lutherans on that platform, and hold 
fellowship with them? We do not mean that the Con- 
cordia Lutherans should give up their confessional basis, 
nor, indeed, that any branch of the Lutheran Church 
should surrender her creed or her autonomy; but how 
excellent it would be if we could all work together 
amicably in fellowship and effort on the above basis ! 
Should the time ever come when, by means of friendly 
discussion and negotiation, we could adjust our con- 
fessional differences, an organic union might then be 
effected, and all Lutherans could march abreast against 
the common foe under one flag. 

You see, brethren, that the General Synod and the 
Scandinavian Synods, in accepting from the heart the 
Augsburg Confession, necessarily accept the true doctrine 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 167 

of justification by faith alone, which carries with it, pure 
and undefiled, the precious doctrine of salvation by grace 
alone. If our Missouri brethren could hear the teachers 
in our General Synod seminaries insisting on the doc- 
trines of grace, and condemning all human merit and 
work-righteousness, they could not help feeling that we 
stand solidly on those great basal doctrines. The doc- 
trine most insistently taught by every member of the 
Wittenberg theological faculty is that the merits of Christ 
are the sole ground of our salvation, and that those merits 
are apprehended and appropriated by faith alone. We 
are sure that all the General Synod seminaries teach the 
same kind of theology. 

Just to venture a little further, hoping we will not 
be thought guilty of temerity, we think that something 
like the following might be seriously considered as a 
feasible platform for Lutheran unification in America: 
To hold and accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession 
as our creed, and Luther's Small Catechism as our book 
of instruction ; then to acknowledge the abiding historical, 
doctrinal, and spiritual value of the Secondary Symbols 
of the Book of Concord, and to maintain that a thorough 
mastery of their contents is necessary in order properly to 
understand and appreciate the Lutheran system of faith. 
This would give us a fixed and fundamental Lutheran 
creed on which all Lutherans could stand, and yet would 
place the development and theological refinements of the 
supplemental Confessions in the domain of liberty and 
free discussion. We believe, too, that this platform would 
not keep before the Church so many questions that 
gender division. 

A supreme argument for Lutheran unity and co- 



168 Election and Conversion 

operation in America is the wonderful doctrinal agree- 
ment that already exists among. See how we hold in 
common everything that is fundamental to purity of doc- 
trine and development in life. There is not an ecclesi- 
astical body in America that is such a compact doctrinal 
solidarity as is the Lutheran Church. Let us see how 
true this is. 

First, all of us accept the whole Bible as the inspired 
Word of God. We know of only two men among us 
who are in the least tainted with the so-called "new" 
theology and the mutilating Biblical criticism, and they 
occupy no commanding theological positions in the 
Church. There is only one other branch of the Christian 
Church here in America that stands thus united on the 
Bible; for it is an outstanding fact that most of the de- 
nominations are infected, and some of them fairly honey- 
combed, with the negative higher criticism and the 
naturalistic views of religion. The Lutheran Church has 
evidently "come to the kingdom for such a time as this" — 
to save the Bible and the evangelical faith from the hands 
of critical vandalism. Oh, that we might cease to oppose 
one another! Oh, that we might mobilize our forces 
against the common foe! 

A further bond of unity among us is our undivided 
allegiance to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. What 
a solid front that gives us ! No need of further debate 
about our fundamental and generic creed. Nowhere else 
will you find such confessional unanimity. 

Nor is that all : every Lutheran body in this country 
joins all other Lutherans in holding the other Symbols 
in the highest regard, even where they are not adopted 
officially in the credal sense. In view of so much unity 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 169 

among us, why should we not cease to fight among our- 
selves? Why not join hands and hearts in advancing the 
kingdom of God? Why set up altar against altar? We 
pray that we may all whet our swords, gird on the whole 
armor of God, unite our forces, and march in solid 
phalanx against the common foes of our religion. We 
believe such a sight would be pleasing to Him who said : 
"One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are 
brethren." 

The sectary might raise a fine, technical point just 
here, namely : You have tried to show that the Missouri 
Synod has misconceived some parts of God's Word, and 
has put the Lutheran regulative doctrine in a subordinate 
place. Would not these facts logically make you ex- 
clusive toward Missouri? How can you still be willing 
to hold fellowship with her? Our reply is: First, by 
love. Love is "the greatest thing in the world" (1 Cor. 
13:13). "Love suflereth long, and is kind . . . love 
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up . . . thinketh no 
evil . . . believeth all things ; hopeth all things ; endureth 
all things ; love never faileth." 

Secondly, by logical consistency. We agree on all 
the fundamental matters, Missouri and the rest of us. 
We are equally sincere and earnest; with equal fervor 
we accept the whole Bible as the inspired Word of God ; 
with no reservations we accept the Unaltered Augsburg 
Confession and Luther's Small Catechism; we hold the 
whole system of evangelical truth, including the doctrines 
of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the 
divine-human person of Christ, the vicarious atonement, 
etc. ; no less heartily do all of us accept our distinctive 
Lutheran doctrines: justification by faith alone; salvation 



170 Election and Conversion 

by grace alone; the universal offer of salvation; the 
communicatio idiomatum respecting the natures of 
Christ; the real presence of His body and blood in the 
Holy Supper; the Word and the sacraments as the means 
of grace ; the regenerating efficacy of child baptism ; 
private confession and absolution (of course not in the 
sacerdotal sense) ; the universal priesthood of believers. 
And these are the essential doctrines. A particularistic 
view of election and conversion is not fundamental in the 
Lutheran Church, for from the start some of our best 
and most loyal theologians have held diverse opinions re- 
specting them. The doctrines on which we agree are 
so much more numerous and vital than those about which 
we differ that we could easily fellowship with our 
Missouri brethren, without asking them to accept all our 
views respecting the matters at issue. This, we maintain, 
is a consistent position. 

An objection may be sprung : All that has been said 
in favor of Lutheran union might also be said in favor 
of union with other branches of the Christian Church. 
The caveat, however, would not be well taken. First, 
we Lutherans are much nearer together doctrinally 
than we are with the denominations. Some of the doc- 
trines that we hold most dear they repudiate. If you 
think they do not, just spring those doctrines in the 
presence of their theologians. It would be a long, long 
time before we could come to an agreement doctrinally 
with other communions ; and perhaps it could never be 
accomplished, for we Lutherans could never consent to 
surrender or compromise our precious doctrines of the 
ubiquity of Christ's glorified human nature, of His real 
presence in the Holy Communion, of baptismal grace, 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 171 

nor could we subscribe to a platform of indifferentism 
toward these doctrines. Doctrinally, therefore, a general 
union is not feasible. Let us confine our attention to 
what is much more practicable, the possibility of Luth- 
eran unity. 

Then, the denominations differ so much from us 
in practice that union with them is out of the question. 
Perhaps most serious of all is the fact that, with one 
or two exceptions, the denominations are honey-combed 
with liberalizing tendencies in theology and with ex- 
tremely loose ideas of the inspiration, authority and 
historicity of the Bible. These latitudinarian views are 
taught in many of their theological schools, and preached 
in many of their pulpits. Therefore anything like a real 
sympathetic union and fellowship with them under these 
circumstances is impossible. With us Lutherans in 
America it is different. We can say that we are a unit 
on the doctrine of the Bible. Here we ought to stand 
together and present a solid front to rationalism, negative 
criticism and liberalistic theology. Again we say, the 
Lutheran Church has "come to the kingdom for such a 
time as this." 

Once more, and this time more of a plea than an 
argument. Lutherans ought to be willing to overlook 
some fault in one another. They ought not to be hyper- 
critical. This is not a world of perfection. They should 
cultivate the charity that "thinketh no evil." As far as 
possible, they should put the best construction on one 
another's actions. There are some methods and practices 
in all branches of our Zion that are not quite to the 
liking of the other bodies. Most of us can even see things 
in our own ecclesiastical communions that we should 



172 Election and Conversion 

like to see changed. But all of us must refrain from 
being too severe in our judgments. Nor should we insist 
on too rigid a discipline in other bodies. For example, 
to be perfectly frank, it has often puzzled us how saloon- 
keepers and liquor-dealers could be tolerated in any- 
Lutheran Church of America; but even here we are not 
ready to be too condemnatory in our judgment, for we 
cannot perhaps quite "put ourself in the place" of those 
who must put up with such men. If a General Synod min- 
ister were to go before a State legislature, or a committee 
of it, and advocate Sunday base-ball, we believe he would 
be called to account by the District Synod to which he 
belonged. We know of such a case in one branch of the 
Lutheran Church ; yet the offender never received a word 
of synodical rebuke! 

Just so other branches of the Lutheran Church 
should remember the peculiar situation in the General 
Synod with regard to certain matters — for instance, the 
lodge question and a little liberalism — that others think 
ought to call for strenuous discipline. In our branch of 
the Lutheran Church this gentle principle largely pre- 
vails : "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in any trespass, 
ye who are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of 
gentleness ; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law 
of Christ." True, this mild method may be abused; but 
it may also be transgressed. 

For years the General Synod seems to have been 
the object of special criticism. Perhaps it has, in a way, 
turned out for our good. It has lead our theologians and 
ministers to examine Lutheran doctrine and practice 
more thoroughly, and thus make sure that they stood for 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 173 

the pure truth as our Church holds it. However, our 
critics have usually forgotten the peculiar make-up of the 
General Synod. Ours is the oldest General body of 
Lutherans in this country, unless the Joint Synod of 
Ohio should hold that place of honor. The General 
Synod was organized in 1820. From the start it used 
the English language almost exclusively. From the start 
it was necessarily thrown into contact with the numerous 
Reformed Churches around it. The General Synod 
therefore, has not been able to build up her constituency 
as most of the other branches of the Lutheran Church 
in America have done — very largely out of immigrants 
from Lutheran countries beyond the sea and from the 
children of the Church. On the other hand, we have 
largely gone to the unconverted people of all classes 
around us, and have tried to win them from the power 
of Satan unto God, just as we should have done and just 
as all branches of the Lutheran Church should do. In 
this way we have gathered much spiritually unformed 
material into our churches ; many of these recruits had 
no religious training whatever; others were brought up 
in the various denominations around us, but had lapsed 
into sin. Thus, while we have simply done our duty in 
bringing sinners from the world to Christ and into the 
Church, it has given us a heterogeneous constituency; 
and it takes time and unwearying patience to mould all 
this material into a homogeneous Lutheran unity. This 
is our peculiar situation in the General Synod, and has 
been all along. It will readily account for the fact that 
some of our congregations and ministers are not and have 
not been quite as perpendicular in their Lutheranism as 
they should have been. If the other Lutheran bodies 



174 Election and Conversion 

had been started in the same way, and had set for 
themselves the same spiritual task, they would have had 
precisely the same problems to wrestle with, and would 
have suffered from the same embarassment. While the 
General Synod has been struggling with her problems, 
and doing so in all sincerity and devotion, some of the 
other bodies, not troubled with the same questions, have 
looked on and have criticized us. For this we do not 
blame them, for members of the General Synod often 
did some fault-finding with others, too. But now that we 
are coming to know one another better, and to understand 
better the peculiar situation in each Lutheran body, we 
believe that the time has come for charitable judgment 
and sympathetic treatment. 

The time has come when the whole Lutheran 
Church must do more home missionary work; when she 
must not be satisfied only with "gathering Lutherans" 
and nurturing the children of the Church (noble and 
paramount a work as this is) ; but when she must go out 
into "the highways and hedges, the lanes and the alleys,*' 
and bring in the unsaved of all classes and conditions. 
These people before conversion will not be Lutherans, 
and many of them will not have Lutheran antecedents; 
but they need Christ and the Church; and after they 
have been converted, they must be indoctrinated and 
moulded into good and true Lutherans. When some 
of our sister Lutheran bodies do this kind of work on 
a large scale, as the General Synod has done all along, 
they will have some of the difficult problems to deal 
with that have tested the General Synod's skill, patience 
and strength. 



The Question of Lutheran Unity 175 

Let it be understood that the mission work which we 
urge must not be done by the so-called "revival" method. 
God forbid ! It must be done according to our sober 
and solid Lutheran methods — quiet personal work on the 
part of pastors and people, careful catechization after 
conversion, and the true preaching of the law and the 
gospel. When the whole Lutheran Church of America 
enters this work with sacred earnestness and prayer, 
much of our controversy will be laid aside. 

The General Synod has learned some valuable 
lessons through her long years of mission work among 
the unsaved and unchurched. She has learned, and 
that by not a little bitter experience, that the so-called 
"revival" system is not the best way to make good and 
substantial Christians and church members. She has 
also learned that the only proper way to bring up the 
children of the church, and as many other children as 
possible, is by careful instruction in the home, the Sun- 
day-school and the catechetical class. Of course, many 
of our pastors were sound in their practices along this 
line from the beginning, but a good many others had 
to learn by experience and observation. The General 
Synod has learned, in addition to the foregoing, that even 
adults should not be received into the church in a pro- 
miscuous way, after they have confessed Christ in con- 
version, but that they, as well as children, should first 
pursue a course of careful indoctrination in the cate- 
chism under the pastor, before they are admitted into 
full membership. It has not been our fault that we 
did not know these things by mere intuition, nor has it 
been to their credit that some other branches of the 
Lutheran Church have not had to wrestle with these 



176 Election and Conversion 

problems ; the whole matter has been due to the peculiar 
conditions and environments here in this new land of 
America, where work along so many lines had to be 
experimental and tentative for a time. 

Our task is done. No other feeling than that of 
love and admiration for our Concordia brethren has 
actuated us in this undertaking. We have been frank, 
perhaps a little polemical at times, but always friendly. 
Our hope and prayer have been that this presentation 
might accomplish this one object, if nothing more: to 
make it clear to all parties that no one should be too 
dogmatic regarding the doctrines in dispute, and 
especially should not make them the cause of separa- 
tion and exclusion. May even this humble effort help 
to make for Lutheran unity and good-will! And may 
Christ reign in all our hearts and His Holy Spirit guide 
our Lutheran Zion into the ways of truth and peace! 



FINIS 



INDEX 



Abraham's election, 118, 119. 
Acts preparatory, 51, 52, 78, 86-110. 
Allwardt, Rev H. A., 20, 51, 144. 
Analogy of faith, 55, 58. 
Apology of A. C, 35, 70. 
Assurance of salvation, 108-110. 
Augustine, 126. 

Author, why he wrote this book, 16-21, 158, 159; no separatist, 
169. 

Baptism, 63, 83, 84, 85, 170. 

Book of Concord, 15, 135, 161, 166, 167, 168. 

Brenz, 161. 

Call, the divine, 21, 47-55, 66, 71, 82, 87, 88, 92, 95, 98, 99, 

101, 114. 
Calvinism, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 23, 42, 54, 57, 67, 106, 115, 

126, 129. 
Catechism, Luther's, 150, 166, 167, 169. 
Chemnitz, 88, 89. 
Civil righteousness, 70. 
"Come-outers," 147. 
Communicatio idiomatum, 60, 170. 

Concordia dogmaticians, 5, 24, 53, 56, 84, 92, 108, 166, 176. 
Conduct and good conduct, 9, 25, 41, 89, 116, 118, 138, 164, 165. 
Confessions, Lutheran, 7, 9, 135, 159. 
Consubstantiation, 8. 
Conversion (chief references), 5, 18, 50, 52, 60; in the strict 

sense, 61-73; 78, 80, 85, 92, 97, 98, 100; in the wider sense, 101. 



180 INDEX 

Death, spiritual, defined, 68-71. 

Decrees, divine, 7, 9, 10, 22, 23, 31, 35, 36, 75, 85, 114, 133, 136, 

139. 
Disciples, proposals for union, 14. 
Discretio personarum, 164. 
Discussion necessary, 18, 21, 158, 159, 164, 166. 
Doctrinal agreement in the Lutheran Church, 15, 160, 161, 168, 

169. 

Election (chief references), 5, 8-10, 18, 30, 38, 46, 60, 85, 114, 
115, 117-136, 138; to be sought in revealed Word, 139, 140, 
160; comfort of, 109, 110, 123, 132, 133, 134. 

Episcopalians, proposals for union, 14. 

Ernst, Prof. H., 20, 51, 114. 

"Error of Missouri," 20, 51. 

Exclusiveness, 142-157. 

Fairbairn, A. M., (reference to consubstantiation), 8. 

Faith, justifying, the regulative principle in theology, 20-30, 115; 

no merit, 25-30, 137, 138, 165; determines destiny, 32-40; 

wrought in regeneration, 61-72; not mechanical, 78, 79; "in 

view of faith" sharply defined, 113, J14; a condition, not a 

cause of election, 138; most pleasing to God, 141. 
Foreknowledge and foresight, 36, 37, 113, 118, 122, 128, 129, 136, 

140. 
Foreordination, 30, 33, 34, 100, 112, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140. 
Formula of Concord, 8, 15, 22, 35, 60, 71, 87, 135, 139, 150, 162. 
Free conferences (Missouri, Ohio and Iowa), 58, 141, 148, 

149, 161. 
Freedom and free will, 37, 38, 50, 52, 55, 63, 64, 67, 71, 74-79, 

90, 91, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 114, 121, 141. 

General Council, 159. 

General Synod, 6, 14, 135, 165, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174. 

Gentiles, election of, 116-126. 

Graebner, Dr. A. L., 29, 52, 54. 

Gratia suffrciens, 40, 98, 114. 

"Holiness" sect, their separatism, 146, 147. 



INDEX 181 

Illumination, 21, 49-55, 61, 66, 67, 71, 76, 82, 88, 92, 95, 101. 
Intuitu fidei, 9, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29-51, 109; term sharply 

denned, 113, 114, 165. 
Iowa Synod, 5, 58, 142, 159. 
Irresistible grace, 37, 67. 
Isaac and Ishmael, 119. 
Israel's election, 116-126. 

Jacob and Esau, 119-121. 

Jacobs, Dr. Henry E., 15, 16, 20, 24, 27, 35, 50, 52, 55, 71, 98, 
113, 114, 115, 120, 135, 139, 162. 

Jews, election of, 116-126. 

Joint Synod of Ohio, 5, 21, 58, 142, 144, 159, 173. 

Justification by faith, all Lutherans accept, 15, 169; Lutheran 
regulative principle, 22-30, 50, 63, 113, 115; central with Paul, 
24, 25, 112-126; also with Luther, 22-24; as a basis, 165, 167. 

Latitudinarianism, 171. 

Lenski, Professor R. C. H., 41. 

Lord's Supper, 8, 150, 170. 

Luther, 22, 23, 24, 30, 39, 41, 85, 88, 115, 118, 138, 139, 161. 

Lutheran Church, 5, 16, 37, 46, 67, 84, 87, 97, 104, 157, 158, 159, 

163-165, 170-176. 
Lutheran comity and co-operation, basis of, 166. 
Lutheran Liberty. 16, 159, 164, 165. 
Lutheran unity and union, 5, 6, 14-21, 87, 104, 151-157, 158-176; 

proposed basis, 167. 

Madison Agreement, 6, 7, 102, 103. 

Melanchthon, 98. 

Missouri Synod, her precise position, 5-13; concise statement, 
8-10; Dr. Pieper's statement, 10-13; sincerity, 8; her rigid 
position, 19; election central, 20-25, 30; her view of faith, 
22-30, 79, 137; of divine sovereignty, 23; of mystery, 31-40, 
55, 139; her creed, 35, 139; contradictory position, 53-55; 
disconnected use of Scripture, 55-60, 128, 130-134, 143, 145, 
148; misapplied Scripture, 142-151; omits baptism, 84, 85; 
her view of the will, 90, 91, 141; figures of speech, 98; 



182 INDEX 

favorite passages, 111-135; emphasizes God's power, 115; 

confuses God's general and special decrees, 136; public 

prayer, 142; separatism, 142-157. 
Motus inevitabiles, 99. 
Mystery, Missouri's, 7, 9, 11, 13; locating it, 31-40; other 

references, 45, 50, 53, 60, 72, 106, 107, 139, 141. 

Natural powers, 65, 66, 70-72, 86, 87, 98. 

Negative criticism, 131, 161, 168, 171. 

Neve, Dr. J. L., 58, 142. 

Nicene Council, 163. 

Norwegian Lutherans, 5, 6, 7, 102, 105. 

Norwegian Lutheran Synod, 6, 159. 

Nuggets of thought, 136-141. 

Order of salvation, 21, 49, 61, 65, 85, 114, 116. 
Osiander, 97. 

Pelagianism, 8, 19, 42, 43, 46, 50, 161. 

Pharaoh, 121-128, 134, 138. 

Pieper, Dr. F. (chief references), his book, 5, 8; repudiates 
Calvinism, 7, 8, 10, 12, 23 ; doctrinal statement, 10-13 ; Pieper 
and Jacobs, 15, 16, 50; wrong allegations, 19, 20, 50, 51; 
his central doctrine, 20-25, 30; makes faith a merit, 25, 26, 
30, 137; his gracious concession, 39; mechanical treatment 
of preparatory acts, 51, 36-110; omits prayer, 62; conception 
of faith and freedom, 79, 80, 141 ; omits baptism, 84, 85 ; 
view of responsibility in the unconverted, 103, 106; his view 
fails to give assurance, 108-110; treatment of Rom. 8:28-30, 
112; his apparent ultimatum, 165. 

Potter and clay, 118, 123. 

Prayer, place of in conversion, 61-63. 

Predestination, 6, 7, 15, 37, 112-115, 144. 

Predetermination, divine, 36, 113, 116, 125, 126, 136, 139. 

Preparatory Acts, 86-110. 

Presbyterians, 104, 107. 

Prevenient grace, 47-55, 61, 63, 65, 71, 78, 82, 83, 92, 114. 

Proselyting sects, when they flourish, 164. 



INDEX 183 

Rabies theologicorum, 163. 
Rationalism, 131, 161, 171. 
Regeneration, 52, 61-72, 76, 101. 
Replies to Missouri, 5, 20, 21, 37, 41, 51. 
Responsibility of sinners, 50, 99, 103-107, 114, 141. 
Revivalism, 175. 

Salvation and conversion ethical, 21, 52, 71, 75, 76, 90, 94. 

Scandinavians bodies, 166. 

Schmidt, Dr. F. A, 20, 51. 

Schodde, Dr. G. H., 20. 

Schuette, Dr. C. H. L., 21. 

Sedes doctrinae, 33, 147. 

Seminaries, teaching in General Synod, 167. 

Separatism, 142-157. 

Sheldon, Henry C, 125, 126. 

Sola gratia, 9, 12, 15, 26, 28, 36, 49, 51, 65, 76, 94, 102, 115, 

160, 165. 
Sola vis, 115. 

Sovereignty, divine, 22, 23, 116-126. 
Spaeth, Dr. A., 73, 74. 
Staupitz, 24. 

Stellhorn, Dr. F. W., 20, 51, 135, 161. 
Strassburg faculty, 89, 100. 
Synergism, rejected by all Lutherans, 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, 25, 46, 49, 

50, 65, 81, 89, 98, 103, 111, 161. 
Synodical Conference, 7, 13, 45, 142, 159, 160. 

Tbessel, Rev. E. L. S., 20, 37, 38, 42, 51. 

Ubiquity of Christ, 170. 

Unio Mystica, 63. 

Union, Lutheran (see "Lutheran Union"). 

United Norwegian Lutheran Church, 6. 

United Synod of the South, 160. 

Universalis gratia, 10, 12, 15, 160. 

Vocation, 47-55, 61, 65, 67, 71, 76. 



184 INDEX 

Walther, D. C. F. W. (spelled Walter in text), 38, 92-96, 99, 

144. 
Will, God's a distinction, 137. 
Will, man's, (see "freedom and free will"). 
Wittenberg seminary, 167. 

Word of God accepted by all Lutherans, 7, 161, 168, 169; its 
teaching decisive, 111. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



